^BfOFPRINCfig^ 


v^OlOGICALSt*^ 


LECTURE  S/^^     • 

0CT2G  1920 

ON  THE  N^(!?//>prn*i  «fCV,\^>^ 

DOCTRINES    OE    CHRISTIANITY, 


IN  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


UNITARIANS  AND  OTHER  TENOMINATIONS  OF 
CHRISTIANS. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  F1K8T  INDEPENDENT  CHURCH  OE  BALTIMORE. 


GEORGE  Yi.  BURNAP. 


"  This  is  life  eternal,  that  tliey  miiiht  know  Tliee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent." 
"  He  preached  unto  them  Jesus  and  the  Resurrection." 


SECOND  EDITION  WITH  ADDITIONS. 


BOSTON  AND  CAMBRIDGE. 

JAMES  MUNROE  AND  COMPANY. 

1848. 


jEatereJ  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1848,  by 

GEORGE   W.  BURNAP, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Maryland. 


CONGREGATION 

WORSHIPPING  IN  THE    FIRST    INDEPENDENT    CHURCH    OF 
BALTIMORE : 

Since  the  commencement  of  our  connection  you  must  be 
aware,  that  I  have  abstained  almost  entirely  from  the  intro- 
duction of  subjects  of  a  purely  controversial  nature  into  the 
public  instructions  accompanying  our  social  worship.  It  has 
been  my  first  object  to  promote  in  you  the  great  end  of  reli- 
gion, a  pure  heart  and  a  pure  life,  rather  than  to  make  you 
able  advocates  of  sectarian  peculiarities.  The  Lectures,  to 
which  you  have  been  listening  the  past  winter,  are  a  devia- 
tion from  this  course.  .  They  were  designed  to  meet  the 
wants  of  the  rising  generation,  who  justl-y  demand  to  know 
the  reason  of  the  faith  of  their  fathers.  To  demonstrate  to 
them  that  this  faith  is  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  not  as  it  is  represented  "  another  Gospel ;"  that  it  is  a 
sure  foundation  of  hope,  and  a  sufficient  guide  of  life,  was 
the  object  of  those  discourses.  For  the  same  purpose  and  in 
compliance  with  your  desire,  they  are  now  given  to  you 
through  the  press. 


*^  PRKFACE. 

That  they  may  contribute  something  to  "  stablish,  strength- 
en and  settle  you,"  to  give  you  "  all  joy  and  peace  in  believ- 
ing," is  the  humble  wish  and  prayer 

Of  your  friend  and  pastor, 

G.  W.  BURNAP. 
June,  1835. 


CONTENTS 


LECTURE  I. 

THE  SUPREMACY  AND  SOLE  DIVINITY  OF  GOD  THE    FATHER. 

Page. 

Importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity     ....  13 

The  Trinity  not  taught  in  nature 14 

Inconsistent,  contradictory 15 

Every  argument  for  the  Trinity  equally  proves  three  Gods    .         .  17 

Argument  from  the  Atonement 24 

Not  proved  from  the  form  of  baptism,  or  the  Apostolic  benediction  28 
The  term  Father  co-extensive  with  the  word  God,  not  the  name  of 

one  Person  of  God,  but  of  the  whole  Deity        ....  32 

Object  of  worship 36 

Balance  of  difficulties 42 

LECTURE  IL 

THE  SECOND  PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

Plan  of  argument 45 

Incarnation  monstrous 48 

No  evidence  of  such  a  thing  in  the  birth  of  Christ  ...  49 

In  his  life .52 

Nor  his  death 57 

Two  natures  without  evidence 59 

His  language  inconsistent  with  it 61 

Son  of  God  explained 65 

LECTURE  in. 

THE  PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

The  Spirit  of  God  and  the  spirit  of  man 71 

Not  a  person  because  it  has  no  proper  name  .        .         .         .74 

Never  so  considered  by  the  Jews — never  worshipped     ...  76 

The  essence  of  God 80 


VI  CONTENTS. 

Miraculous  gifts 82 

Not  often  even  personified 86 

Summing  up  the  argument 88 

LECTURE  IV. 

THE  ATONEMENT. 

Believed  by  Unitarians 96 

The  common  hypothesis  incredible 99 

Influence  of  Christ's  death 103 

Examination  of  arguments 106 

The  common  doctrine  derogatory  to  God 115 

Conclusion 118 

LECTURE  V. 

ORIGINAL  SIN. 

Doctrine  stated 119 

Impious 120 

Orthodox  admissions 123 

Makes  trial  a  mockery   .         .         .         .• 127 

Not  contained  in  Genesis 128 

Not  proved  by  actual  corruption 135 

Annihilates  human  guilt 138 

Examination  of  texts 143 

LECTURE  VI. 

TOTAL  DEPRAVITV. 

Contradicted  by  Peter 146 

As  stated  by  its  advocates 148 

Texts  examined .153 

Antecedently  improbable 157 

Contradicted  by  consciousness 159 

By  man's  moral  sentiments 161 

Contrary  to  the  Scriptures 167 

LECTURE  VIL 

ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

Doctrine  stated 1 70- 

Different  from  the  election  of  Scripture 173 


CONTENTS. 


Explanation 174 

What  election  is  consistent  with  God's  character  and  dealings       .  182 

What  is  that  of  the  Scriptures 183 

Foreknowledge 190 


LECTURE  VIII. 

JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS. 

The  Creeds 195 

Justification  hy  faith  alone,  unreasonable 198 

Improbable 203 

Contradicted  by  the  Scriptures 205 

Beconciliation  of  Paul  and  James 210 


LECTURE  IX. 

SALVATION. 

What  is  it      .         .         .         • 218 

Examination  of  the  common  hypothesis 224 

What  kind  of  salvation  is  compatible  with  man's  nature        .         .  232 

How  is  it  effected 239 

LECTURE  X. 

REGENERATION. 

Common  doctrine  according  to  the  Creeds 243 

Passive  regeneration  a  libel  on  the  character  of  God      .         .         .  248 

What  action  of  God  on  the  mind  consistent  with  accountability    .  252 

Passive  regeneration  makes  preaching  a  mockery          .         .         .  254 

Founded  on  a  perversion  of  Scripture    ." 257 

What  regeneration  is 265 


LECTURE  XI. 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY. 


What  are  the  sources  of  its  moral  power 272 

To  be  learned  from  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles          .         .         .  274 

Apostles'  Creed -288 

An  enumeration  of  their  principal  doctrines  .....  289 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  XII. 

WHAT  IS  IT  TO  BE  A  CHRISTIAN. 

Christian  name  used  as  an  engine  of  church  policy        .         .         .  295 

All  sects  exclusive 296 

Attempts  to  crush  Unitarianism  hy  denunciation  .      '■  .        .         .  302 
Presbyterians  act  on  the  same  principle  with  the  Catholics,  whom 

they  denounce 303 

Malignant  falsehood  of  the  assertion  that  Unitarians  are  infidels    .  309 

The  belief  and  pi-actice  of  a  Christian 311 

LECTURE  XIIL 

HOW  DOES  A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

Best  illustrated  by  its  opposite,  how  a  man  becomes  a  heathen  in 

Christian  lands 322 

In  what  sense  the  work  of  the  spirit  of  God 323 

Primitive  administration  of  Christianity 333 

Revivals 336 

Divinely  appointed  means  of  making  men  Christians    .         .         .  344 

LECTURE  XIV. 

ORIGIN,  NATURE,  AND  TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS. 

The  principle  on  which  they  are  established  .         .         ,         .     349 

Creeds  reveal  to  us  the  elements,  the  growth,  and  establishment  of 

the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 349 

Elements  of  the  Trinity,  of  heathen  origin 351 

The  Platonic  Logos  was  the  basis  of  the  second  Person  of  the 

Trinity  and  the  Divine  Nature  of  Christ 352 

Creeds  grew  out  of  the  form  of  baptism 365 

The  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  and  the  Athanasian  Creeds,  show  the 

gradual  growth  of  the  doctrine  to  its  present  state  .  .  .  372 
Conclusion 373 


LECTURE   I. 


THE  SUPREMACY  AND    SOLE   DIVINITY    OF    GOD 
THE  FATHER. 


1  CORINTHIANS,  VIII.  5,  6. 

For  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  hea- 
ven OR  IN  earth  (as  there  BE  GODS  MANY,  AND  LORDS  MANY); 
BUT  TO  CS  THERE  IS  ONE  GOD,  THE  FATHER. 

It  was  asked  of  our  Saviour  on  a  certain  occasion, 
"  Which  is  the  first  commandment  of  all  ?"  in  modern 
phrase,  What  is  the  most  important  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  religion  ?  He  answered,  "  Hear,  O  Israel ;  the 
Lord  your  God  is  one  Lord."  Or,  as  it  stands  out  in 
greater  distinctness  and  sublimity  in  the  Hebrew  origi- 
nal of  Moses,  "  Hear,  O  Israel ;  Jehovah  your  God, 
Jehovah  is  one." 

He  laid  the  foundation  of  religion  in  the  Unity  of 
God.  His  heaven-inspired  mind  saw  more  cleajly  than 
we  can  do,  the  dependence  of  the  purity  and  integrity 
of  religion  on  the  recognition  of  one  undivided  Object 
of  religious  worship  and  affection.  We,  who  see  but 
in  part,  can  perceive  the  same  truth  only  through  the 
medium  of  past  experience.  That  has  ever  vindicated 
the  transcendent  wisdom  of  our  Master.  For  there 
2 


14  THE  SUPREMACY  AND   SOLE   DIVINITr 

has  been  scarcely  an  error  in  opinion,  or  a  corruption 
in  practice,  in  the  Christian  church,  which  has  not  been 
in  some  way  connected  with  a  violation  of  this  great 
truth,  that  God  is  one.     , , 

In  commencing,  then,  a  course  of  Lectures  on  Chris- 
tian Doctrine,  I  cannot  do  amiss  when  I  attempt  to 
lay,  as  he  did,  the  foundation  of  religion  in  the  Unity 
of  God.  But  on  the  very  threshold  of  our  inquiries  we 
meet  a  difficulty,  we  encounter  what  seems  to  us  an 
opposite  doctrine,  that  God  is  three  persons.  Before 
we  make  any  progress,  then,  we  must  examine  this  doc- 
trine. To  this  subject,  therefore,  our  first  three  lec- 
tures will  be  devoted.  And  while  we  discuss  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  let  nothing  which  may  be  said  be 
construed  into  disrespect,  either  for  the  understanding 
or  the  integrity  of  those  who  hold  it.  It  is  a  doctrine 
for  which  the  present  generation  are  not.  responsible. 
It  has  been  handed  down  to  them  by  their  fathers,  with 
the  venerable  associations  of  antiquity  ;  it  is  interwoven 
with  literature  and  devotion,  and  thus  has  a  sacredness 
in  their  eyes  which  takes  the  place  of  evidence,  and 
almost  precludes  calm  and  dispassionate  investigation. 
The  duty  of  the-present  age  is  inquiry.  Truth  is  par- 
amount both  to  authority  and  sacred  association.  Our 
first  allegiance  is  due  to  Truth.  I  invite  all,  then,  to 
the  discharge  of  a  duty,  when  I  invite  them  to  follow 
me  in  this  discussion.  If  they  adopt  my  conclusions, 
in  justice  to  their  understandings  I  should  hope  it  will 
not  be  on  insufficient  ground.  If  they  fail  to  do  so, 
they  will  at  least  exchange  a  faith  derived  from  tradi- 
tion for  one  founded  on  evidence. 


/  OF   GOD  THE   FATHER.  15 

In  the  course  of  these  Lectures  I  shall  frequently 
quote  from  the  "  Confession  of  Faith"  of  the  divines 
at  Westminster,  and  from  the  "  Thirty-nine  Articles  of 
the  Church  of  England;"  not  from  any  unkindness 
towards  those  who  profess  these  creeds,  or  with  a  de- 
sign to  hold  them  up  to  odium  or  derision,  but  merely 
because  they  contain  the  most  formal  and  authentic 
statement  of  the  doctrines  I  shall  discuss,  and  because 
they  are  the  public  and  acknowledged  standards  of 
large  and  respectable  bodies  of  the  Christian  church. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  stated  in  the  public 
symbols  of  faith,  is  this  :  "  There  are  three  persons  in 
the  Godhead,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
These  three  are  one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory."  We  object  to  this  doctrine,  that 
it  is  not  taught  in  nature,  that  it  is  rejected  by  reason, 
that  it  is  inconsistent  and  contradictory  to  itself,  and 
finally,  that  it  is  not  taught  in  Scripture,  but  is  contradic- 
ted by  it.  Nature  is  one  of  the  revelations  which  God  has 
made  of  himself.  There  are  abundant  teachings  in 
nature  concerning  one  of  these  persons,  the  Father. 
"  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of 
the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head." Nature  teaches  no  Trinity.  It  bears  evident 
marks  of  being  the  work  of  one  Infinite  Mind.  But 
concerning  the  second  and  third  of  these  persons  it  is 
profoundly  silent.  Men  are  said  to  be  without  excuse 
if  they  do  not  glorify  this  one  being  as  God.  But  they 
are  not  blamed  for  failing  to  recognize  three  persons  in 
this  one  God.     There  is  evidence  in   nature  of  one 


16  THE   SUPREMACY  AND   SOLE   DIVINITY 

agent,  but  not  a  trace  of  evidence  of  any  plurality  or 
division,  whether  of  persons,  or  substances,  or  charac- 
ters. No  trace  can  be  found  that  the  universe  was  cre- 
ated by  one  person  through  the  agency  of  another. 

We  object,  in  the  second  place,  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  itself,  and  is, 
moreover,  a  contradiction  in  terms,  and  therefore  can- 
not be  true.  The  Scriptures  assert  that  God  is  a  spirit. 
But  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  he  is  three  spirits.  Person, 
if  it  mean  anything,  must  mean  a  distinct  mind,  a  sep- 
arate intelligence,  having  all  the  attributes  of  a  person, 
that  is,  must  have  its  own  independent  thoughts,  may 
be  thinking  one  thing  while  every  other  mind  in  the 
universe  is  thinking  something  else.  A  person  must 
have  a  distinct  will  of  his  own,  may  be  willing  one 
thing,  while  every  other  person  is  willing  another  thing. 
It  must  have  a  distinct  power  of  action,  may  be  doing 
one  thing,  while  every  other  person  or  mind  is  doing 
another.  These  are  the  attributes  of  personality.  If 
you  say  that  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity  have  these, 
and  have  them  equally,  then  they  are  indeed  three  per- 
sons. But  if  you  claim  this,  you  must  bid  adieu  for- 
ever to  the  unity  of  God.  Each  of  these  three  persons, 
having  distinct  thought,  will  and  action,  and  all  equally 
possessing  the  attributes  of  divinity,  are,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  three  Gods.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
have  not  these  characteristics  of  personality,  if  they 
have  not  distinct  thought,  will  and  action,  then  they 
become  three  different  names  merely,  for  one  Person, 
one  Intelligence,  one  mind  and  will ;  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  entirely  vanishes  and  disappears.     The 


OV  GOD  THK  FATHER.  17 

three  persons  are  only  one  person.  Every- action  and 
quality  which  will  identify  each  to  be  a  distinct  Person, 
possessing  independently  the  attributes  of  God,  will 
prove  that  Person  to  be  a  distnict  and  independent  God. 
Each  of  these  Persons,  in  order  to  possess  full  divinity, 
must  comprehend  and  take  in  the  whole  being  of  God, 
must  be  identically  the  same  being  with  God.  Then 
they  are  identically  the  same  with  each  other.  They 
are  not  three  Persons,  but  one  Person.  Calling  them 
three  Persons  then,  is  making  a  distinction  where  there 
is  no  difference.  To  make,any  ground  of  distinction 
between  them,  there  must  be  something  in  one  which 
is  not  in  the  others.  That  something  cannot  be  a  Di- 
vine attribute,  or  it  would  be  common  to  them  all. 
And  a  Divine  Person  cannot  have  an  attribute  which 
is  not  Divine,  or  which  a  Divine  Person  can  exist  with- 
out possessjng.  There  cannot  then,  by  any  possibility, 
be  any  diversity  or  ground  of  distinction  between  three 
Persons,  each  comprehending  the  whole  of  the  same 
Divine  Being,  and  each  possessing  every  attribute  of 
God. 

We  are  not  satisfied  with  the  way  in  which  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  usually  attempted  to  be  proved. 
It  is  usually  endeavored  to  show  that  there  are  three 
Persons  who  have  Divine  attributes  ascribed  to  them, 
and  one  as  much  as  the  other.  What  is  the  legitimate 
inference  to  be  drawn  from  this  ?  If  each  of  these  three 
Persons  has  independently  all  the  attributes  of  God,  then 
eaclKof  these  three  Persons  is  a  God.  And  the  proper 
conclusion  is,  that  there  are  three  Gods.  For  if  each 
of  these  Persons  has  all  the  attributes  of  God,  among 
2* 


18  THE   SUPREMACY  AND   SOLE  DIVINITY 

which  is  independent  and  underived  existence,  then  if 
two  of  them  are  withdrawn  fronn  existence,  and  from 
the  universe,  the  third  would  still  exist,  and  be  compe- 
tent to  all  the  purposes  to  which  three  are.  The  legit- 
imate conclusion  then  from  the  fact  when  made  out, 
that  each  of  the  three  Persons  has  all  Divine  attributes, 
is  not  that  there  are  three  persons  in  God,  but  that 
there  are  three  independent  Gods.  If  you  deny  that 
they  could  exist  independently  of  each  other,  just  so 
far  you  deny  them  individually  to  be  God.  You  wish 
to  prove  humanity  of  three  men.  You  go  over  all  the 
attributes  of  humanity  and  prove  them  to  belong  to 
each.  But  when  you  have  done,  and  have  proved  each 
to  be  man,  you  have  proved  each  to  be  a  man,  and  the 
three  to  be  three  men,  but  not  one  man.  Their  par- 
taking of  the  common  attributes  of  humanity  does  not 
prove  them  to  be  one  man.  So  three  Persons  each  pos- 
sessing all  Divine  attributes,  such  as  underived  and  inde- 
pendent existence  and  power,  are  three  Gods,  not  one 
God.  But  there  cannot  be  three  Gods,  why  ?  Because 
it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  things  that  there  should 
be  three  Gods.  Then  it  is  equally  contrary  to  the  na- 
ture of  things  that  there  should  be  three  Persons,  each 
possessing  independent  Divine  attributes.  What  is  this, 
but  saying  you  have  gone  through  a  course  of  argument, 
to  prove  that  to  be  true,  which  when  compared  with 
first  and  self-evident  principles,  is  found  to  be  false, 
and  cannot  by  any  possibility  exist  ?  What  are  you 
then  to  do  ?  You  must  either  admit  that  there  has  been 
a  mistake  in  your  argument,  or  you  must  believe  that 
contradictions,  in  some  mysterious  sense,  may  be  true. 


OF  GOD  THE   FATHER.  ly 

By  doing  this,  you  abandon  every  means  and  all  possi- 
bility of  distinguishing  truth  from  falsehood,  and  of 
course  all  ground  of  reasonable  belief  in  anything. 

In  order  to  prove  each  to  be  a  Person,  you  must 
prove  of  each,  separate  action,  involving  separate  will, 
thought  and  consciousness  ;  without  these  you  cannot 
prove  personality.  But  all  these  are  equally  conclusive 
to  prove  each  to  be  a  separate  Being.  The  Sender 
must  be  a  different  Being  as  well  as  a  different  Person 
from  the  Sent.  To  send  is  the  act  of  a  separate  Being, 
not  of  a  Person  without  a  separate  Being,  because  it 
implies  separate  thought,  will  and  action.  To  be  sent 
is  the  act  of  a  Being ;  not  of  a  Person  without  a  sepa- 
rate Being,  because  that  likewise  supposes  separate 
thought,  will  and  action.  To  hold  intercourse  together, 
as  the  three  Persons  are  said  to  have  done,  certainly 
involves  three  separate  intelligences,  with  separate 
thought  and  consciousness.  This,  if  it  proves  three 
Persons,  must  likewise  prove  three  Beings,  and  three 
Beings,  each  possessing  all  Divine  attributes,  are  three 
Gods.    *- 

In  order  still  to  sustain  the  Unity  of  God,  it  is  not 
sufficient  for  you  to  say  thatthere  can  ba  but  one  God, 
and  therefore  these  three  are  one  God.  You  must  not 
only  reconcile  Trinity  with  Unity,  but  show  them  to  be 
one  God  from  the  elements  of  their  nature,  as  clearly 
as  you  proved  them  to  be  three  Persons.  In  order  to 
do  this,  you  must  prove  them  to  be  one  Being.  But  in 
showing  the  three  Persons  to  be  one  Being,  you  must 
deny  of  them  the  very  attributes  by  vvliich  you  proved 
them  to  be  three  PersonS;  such  as  separate  action,  con- 


20  THE   SUPRKJIACY  AND   SOLE   DIVINITV 

sciousness  and  will.  So  that  when,  as  you  suppose, 
you  have  proved  the  Trinity,  but  find  that  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  Unity,  the  proper  conclusion  is,  not 
that  they  are  both  true,  for  that  is  impossible,  as  they 
contradict  each  other  ;  but  that  the  Trinity  is  false,  and 
the  reasoning  which  led  to  it,  fallacious.  For  the  Uni- 
ty is  a  first  principle,  self-evident  and  therefore  cannot 
be  false ;  the  Trinity  is  a  remote  deduction,  and  there- 
fore may  not  be  true. 

Every  argument,  such  as  separate  action,  involving 
consciousness  and  will,  which  can  be  brought  to  show 
that  each  is  a  Person,  will  be  just  as  valid  to  prove 
that  each  is  a  separate  Being.  And  every  argument 
which  is  brought  to  prove  that  these  three  Persons 
are  one  Being,  will  be  equally  valid  to  prove  that 
these  three  Persons  are  one  Person  under  different 
names.  So  that  every  argument  which  goes  to  prove 
that  God  is  three,  disproves  that  he  is  one  ;  and 
every  argument  that  proves  him  to  be  one,  disproves 
him  to  be  three.  The  whole  controversy  turns  upon 
the  use  of  words.  It  turns  upon  the  distinction  be- 
tween a  Person  and  a  Being.  The  common  idea  con- 
veyed by  the  word  Person,  is  a  separate,  intelligent  Be- 
ing. When  you  say,  that  there  are  three  Persons  in 
God,  you  mean  three  Beings,  or  you  must  define  the 
word  Person.  If  by  Person  you  mean  Being,  you  as- 
sert there  are  three  Gods,  which  is  impossible  ;  if  Per- 
son is  used  in  any  other  sense,  you  must  explain  that 
sense.  If  you  cannot  do  this,  then  it  evidently  has  no 
meaning  in  your  mind.  You  use  words  without  ideas. 
You  make  a  proposition  which  has  no  signification.    In 


or  GOD  THE  FATHER.  21 

Other  words,  you  make  an  affirmalion  which  affirms 
nothing.  The  matter  then  is  reduced  to  this,  the  propo- 
sition that  there  are  three  Persons  in  God,  in  the  only 
sense  in  which  it  is  intelUgible  is  false,  and  if  it  is  true 
in  any  sense,  in  that  sense  it  is  not  intelligible,  and  if 
unintelligible^  cannot  be  perceived  to  be  true.  It  is 
impossible  then,  that  it  should  be  asserted  from  convic- 
tion, and  as  impossible  that  it  should  be  assented  to 
from  a  perception  of  its  truth.  Every  argument  that  is 
brought  to  prove  the  three  to  be  three  Persons,  will 
equally  prove  them  to  be  three  Beings,  and  of  course 
will  be  valid  just  so  far  against  the  Unity  of  God.  And 
any  argument  to  show  that  these  three  Persons  are  one 
Being,  is  equally  conclusive  to  show  that  personality 
has  been  improperly  applied.  If  all  the  separate  ac- 
tions ascribed  to  the  three  Persons,  are  the  actions  of 
one  Being  acting  in  the  three  Persons,  then  the  three 
Persons  are  nothing  more  than  three  names  for  three 
classifications  of  the  actions  of  God.  ^Personality  re- 
peated three  times  of  one  Being  destroys  the  very  idea 
and  essence  of  personality,  destroys  all  its  intelligible 
meaning,  and  as  far  as  that  subject  is  concerned,  makes 
it  a  word  without  signification. 

^,  A  man  demands  my  assent  to  the  proposition,  there 
are  three  Persons  in  one  God.  I  asli  him,  what  he 
means  by  person  ?  I  ask  him,  if  he  means  a  separate 
independent  intelligent  Being?  He  answers,  he  does 
not.  He  does  not  use  the  word  in  the  common  sense, 
but  in  a  sense  peculiar  to  this  case.  I  ask  hira  what 
that  sense  is  ?  He  cannot  tell.  You  demand  of  me 
then,  I  answer,  to  assent  to  a  proposition  which  con- 


22  THE    SUPREMACY  AND   SOLE   DIVINITY 

veys  to  my  mind  no  intelligible  idea,  and,  it  appears  to 
be  equally  unintelligible  to  you.  We  both,  in  reality, 
in  assenting  to  it,  assent  to  nothing  but  words,  and  if 
they  convey  to  us  no  intelligible  meaning,  to  us  they 
are  nothing,  and  we  assent  to  nothing.  Were  these 
words  in  the  Bible,  then  I  might  say  that  I  believed 
they  expressed  truth,  though  1  could  not  understand  it. 
But  not  being  in  the  Bible,  or  any  words  of  the  same 
import,  I  consider  them  the  mere  invention  of  fallible 
men.  I  cannot  believe  on  their  authority.  So  far 
from  supposing  them  to  be  true,  as  I  cannot  understand 
them  myself,  and  no  one  can  explain  them  to  me,  I 
think  it  fair  to  conclude  that  those  who  framed  them 
had  no  clear  ideas. 

Plurality  in  God  then,  is  impossible,  it  is  a  self-con- 
tradiction. The  attributes  of  God  exclude  plurality. 
Plurality  of  men,  or  of  finite  spirits,  is  possible.  They 
may  be  multiplied  without  end,  for  they  do  not  exclude 
each  other.  But  one  infinite  Person,  must  necessarily 
exclude  every  other  infinite  Person.  There  cannot  be 
two  infinities  of  the  same  kind,  whether  of  Beings  or 
Persons,  or  things  ;  for  they  must  either  exclude  each 
other,  or  become  identical.  There  can  be,  for  instance, 
but  one  infinite  space.  For  the  same  reason,  there  can 
be  but  one  God 'in  any  sense.  Neither  can  there  be 
three  Persons,  each  of  them  Supreme ;  for  in  affirming 
supremacy  of  one,  you  deny  it  of  the  others.  So  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  when  analyzed,  resolves  itself 
into  a»contradiction,  or  rather  a  tissue  of  contradictions. 
One  part  denies  what  the  other  part  affirms.  In  order 
to  support  the  personality  of  each  of  the  three  Persons, 


OF.  GOD  THE  FATHER.  23 

it  must  ascribe  to  them  attributes  which  constitute  them 
three  Beings.  To  maintain  the  Unity  of  God,  they 
must  be  proved  to  be  one  Being,  and  to  make  them 
one  Being,  those  very  attributes  must  be  denied,  which 
were  necessary  to  constitute  them  three  Persons.  It 
may  be  said,  it  is  a  mystery.  We  answer,  that  it  is  a 
contradiction.  A  mystery  may  express  truth,  but  a 
contradiction  cannot,  for  it  affirms  and, denies  the  same 
proposition. 

It  follows  inevitably  from  the  self-evident  principles 
we  have  just  developed,  that  any  division  of  God  into 
three  Persons,  I  mean  which  is  real,  and  not  nominal 
only,  necessarily  involves  the  consequence  that  each  of 
these  Persons  must  be  imperfect.  Deity,  from  its  own 
nature,  is  one  whole.  Any  imaginable  division  of  it 
destroys  its  very  nature.  Any  division  of  Deity  cannot 
be  Deity,  whether  you  call  that  division  person,  or  by 
any  other  name.  In  order  to  identify  the  three  Per- 
sons of  the  Trinity,  some  separate  or  exclusive  actions 
must  be*  attributed  to  each,  and  of  course  denied  of  the 
others.  Is  it  not  evident  that  if  the  appropriate  acts  of 
Deity  are  divided  among  three  Persons,  neither  of  them 
in  his  actions  can  be  perfect  God  ?  One  must  be  shorn 
of  his  glories,  to  adorn  the  others.  If  one  created  the 
world  alone,  then  the  other  two  did  not  create  it.  If 
one  governs  the  world,  then  the  others  do  not,  and  He 
is  the  only  proper  object  of  prayer.  If  on  the  other 
hand,  they  all  do  the  same  acts,  and  there  is  no  diver- 
sity of  action,  then  there  is  nothing  in  those  acts  them- 
selves to  prove  that  there  is  more  than  one  Being  or 
Person  in  all  that  has  ever  been  done  by  the  Deity. 


24  THE   SUPREMACY  AND   SOLE  DIVINITY 

Besides,  when  we  have  recognized  the  existence  of 
one  Infinite  Person,  such  as  the  Father,  or  the  first 
Person  of  the  Trinity  is  universally  allowed  to  be,  is  he 
not  competent  to  all  the  purposes  of  Deity  ?  Is  anything 
gained  by  associating  with  himself  two,  or  two  hundred 
persons  ?  They  can  do  only  what  he  was  infinitely 
competent  to  do  alone.  •• 

But  it  is  said,  that  a  Trinity  is  necessary  to  the  econ- 
omy of  redemption.  The  atonement  to  be  infinite 
must  be  made  to  God  by  an  infinite  Being.  The  Be- 
ing to  whom  it  is  made  is  infinite,  and  the  Being  who 
makes  it  must  be  infinite.  But  the  three  Persons  of 
the  Trinity  are  infinite,  not  because  they  comprehend 
and  are  identical  with  three  infinite  Beings,  but  because 
each-  comprehends  and  is  identical  with  one  and  the 
same  infinite  Being.  Then  if  one  Person  of  the  Trin- 
ity make  an  infinite  atonement  to  another,  it  must  be 
by  virtue  of  comprehending  and  being  identical  with 
the  same  infinite  Being  who  constitutes  the  infinity  of 
the  Person  to  whom  the  atonement  is  made.  So  after 
all,  it  will  be  the  same  Divine  and  infinite  Being,  who 
makes  an  atonement,  acting  through  one  Person  to 
himself,  and  receives  it  acting  through  another  Person. 
Of  such  a  scheme  of  atonement  as  this,  I  leave  every 
one  to  judge. 

No  atonement  can  be  made  by  a  Being  strictly  and 
independently  infinite,  to  a  Being  strictly  and  indepen- 
dently infinite,  without  involving  the  supposition  of  two 
independent,  infinite  Beings,  and  of  course  two  Gods. 
This  theory  of  atonement  then,  demands  what  even  the 
Trinity  cannot  give  it,  two  independent  infinite  Beings, 


OF   eOD  THE   FATHER.  25 

two  Gods.  The  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity  are  not 
enough  for  it,  for  they  are  each  of  them  infinite  only 
by  including  and  being  identical  with  one  and  the  same 
infinite  Being.  The  same  infinite  Being  must  act  in  or 
through  one  of  the  Persons  in  making,  at  the  same  mo- 
ment he  is  acting  in,  or  through  the  other  Person,  in  re- 
ceiving it,  which  reduces  it,  you  perceive,  to  a  mere 
fiction.  The  common  scheme  of  atonement  is  an  im- 
possibility. It  requires  more  infinite  Beings  than  there 
are  in  the  universe  to  enact  the  parts  supposed  in  it. 

In  short  the  more  we  examine  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  in  its  intimate  relations,  the  more  we  shall  find 
it  full  of  inconsistencies  and  contradictions.  And  the 
moment  we  lose  sight  of  one  God,  in  one  Person,  the 
whole  Deity  becomes  a  riddle  which  puzzles  the  brain 
beyond  all  explanation.  The  doctrine  therefore,  is  not 
found  in  nature,  and  is  rejected  by  reason  as  an  impos- 
sibility. If  it  is  found  anywhere,  it  must  be  a  doctrine 
of  pure  revelation. 

We  hasten,  then,  to  the  scriptural  argument.  And 
here  its  best  friends  confess,  that  it  is  nowhere  expressly 
taught.  It  is  nowhere  asserted  that  God  is  three  in 
any  respect.  It  is  nowliere  affirmed  that  he  subsists 
in  three  Persons,  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  or 
that  these  three  are  one  God.  It  is  drawn  as  an  in- 
ference from  a  very  few  detached  passages.  But  we 
maintain  that  these  very  passages,  which  are  said  to 
teach  it,  contradict  it,  or  are  inconsistent  with  it.  It  is 
attempted  to  be  proved  from  the  form  of  baptism,  "  Bap- 
tizing them  in  ihe  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Is  it  here  said  that  these 
3 


26  THE   SUPKEMACY   AND   SOLE   DIVINITY 

three  are  equal  ?  Look  at  the  very  words  themselves, 
by  which  those  Persons  are  said  to  be  designated, 
Father  and  Son.  So  far  as  these  names  express  the 
delation  which  subsists  between  these  two  Persons,  they 
signify  that  one  is  derived  from  the  other.  Can  you 
consent  that  one  of  your  Persons  of  the  Trinity  shall 
be  a  derived  being,  and  of  course  not  eternal  ?  So  far 
then,  from  being  equal  in  power  and  glory,  in  this  very 
passage  which  is  brought  to  prove  it,  the  very  names 
and  appellations  imply  inferiority  of  one  to  the  other. 
What  makes  it  still  more  decisive.  Son  is  the  highest 
designation  of  the  second  Person,  where  he  stands  ir> 
his  appropriate  connection  as  one  of  the  Persons  of  the 
Trinity.  But  the  mere  fact  of  the  names  being  placed 
in  this  connection,  does  not  prove  the  Person  to  have 
Divine  attributes.  That  would  be  taking  for  granted 
the  very  thing  to  be  proved.  We  must  go  elsewhere 
to  learn  these  attributes.  Let  us  turn  to  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  Mark.  There  it  is  said,  "  Of  that  day  and 
that  hour,  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  which 
are  in  Heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father."  Then 
the  Son  is  not  God,  for  God  cannot  be  ignorant  of  any- 
thing. It  appears  then,  that  the  second  Person,  the 
Son,  did  not  know  when  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
was  to  take  place,  but  the  Father  did.  He  was  there- 
fore inferior  in  knowledge  to  the  Father,  not  equal,  was 
not  omniscient,  was  not  God.  Here  the  usual  subter- 
fuge, that  he  says  this  in  his  inferior  nature,  or  as  man, 
cannot  be  resorted  to,  to  elude  the  force  of  tliis  irre- 
sistible conclusion,  for  Son  is  the  highest  name  or  char- 
acter he  assumes,  the  very  character  and  name   he  as- 


OF  GOD  THE  FATHER.  27 

sumes  in  the  Trinity,  "  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost," 
and  must  inchide,  if  any  epithet  can  be  supposed  to  in- 
clude, his  highest  nature.  If  you  say  that  the  meaning 
of  "  Son"  is  not  coextensive  in  these  two  cases,  you 
must  show  that  you  are  influenced  to  do  so  by  some 
other  reason  than  the  fact,  that  if  you  allow  the' mean- 
ing to  be  the  same,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  over- 
thrown. If  you  say  that  "  Son"  does  not  include  a 
Divine  nature  in  one  case,  we  have  an  equal  right  to  say 
that  it  does  not  include  the  Divine  nature  in  the  other. 
If  it  is  applied  to  his  inferior  nature  in  the. one  case, 
it  may  be  in  the  other  ;  and  all  argument  in  favor  of  the 
Trinity  from  the  form  of  baptism  must  be  given  up, 
and  the  term  "  Son"  and  "  Son  of  God,"  as  proving 
anything  concerning  Christ's  nature,  must  be  forever 
abandoned. 

Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  the  whole  Deity,  not  the 
Son  of  the  first  Person  of  a  Trinity.  "  Seeing  we  have 
a  great  high  priest,  who  is  passed  into  the  heavens,  Je- 
sus, the  Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  profession." 
The  "  Son  of  God  "  died.  The  second  Person  of  the 
Trinity  could  not  die.  "  For  if  when  we  were  sinners, 
we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son  ; 
much  more  being  reconciled  we  shall  be  saved  by  his 
life."  The  "  Son  of  God,"  the  Son  of  the  whole 
Trinity,  cannot  be  a  second  Person  in  the  Trinity. 
The  "Son"  spoken  of  in  the  creeds,  cannot  be  the 
same  with  the  "  Son  of  God  "  spoken  of  in  the  Bible, 
for  they  have  different  fathers.  One  is  the  Son  of  God, 
the  whole  Deity,  and  the  other  is  the  Son  of  the  Father, 
the  first  Person  of  the  Trinity. 


28  THE   SUPREMACY  AND   SOLE  DIVINITY 

The  Son  of  God  was  "made  of  a  woman,"  the  sec- 
ond Person  of  the  Trinity  could  not  be  made  of  a  wo- 
man, could  not  be  "made"  at  all.  "But  when  the 
fulness  of  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made 
of  a  woman."  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world.  The 
second' Person  of  the  Trinity  cannot  be  sent  anywhere, 
for  he  must  be  by  his  own  essential  nature  omnipresent, 
and  fill  all  space.  "  For  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world  through 
him  might  be  saved." 

If  he  was  not  God,  why  baptize  in  his  name  ?  Why 
associate  him  with  God  in  the  form  ?  The  apostle  says, 
that  the  Israelites  "  were  baptized  into  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Is  Moses  therefore  God,  or  a 
Person  of  the  Trinity  ?  In  the  Old  Testament  it  is  said 
"  the  people  worshipped  God  and  the  king."  Was 
the  king  therefore  God,  becausQ  he  is  thus  associated 
with  him  ?  The  Israelites  were  baptized  into  Moses, 
as  the  prophet  of  God  ;  could  they  not  be  baptized  into 
Christ,  as  the  only  Mediator  between  God  and  man  ? 

Another  of  the  strongest  passages  in  support  of  the 
Trinity,  is  the  apostolic  benediction,  "  The  grace  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  com- 
munion of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all."  "The 
love  of  God  " — is  there  any  intimation  hero  that  the 
word  God  is  not  used  in  its  common  signification,  which 
comprehends  the  whole  Deity  ?  Is  there  any  intima- 
tion that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are 
Persons  in  this  God  ?  Let  us  place  these  two  Trinities 
under  each  other  and  compare  them  together.  "  Bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 


or  GOD  TIU;   FATHER.  29 

and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  tlie  communion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all."  In  the  first  place 
we  observe,  that  the  order  is  not  the  same.  The  sec- 
ond Person  of  the  first  Trinity  is  made  the  first  Person 
of  the  second.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  made  the 
first  Person  of  the  second  Trinity.  The  Son  is  placed 
before  the  Father. 

But  ea'en  there,  the  Persons  are  not  the  same.  The 
second  Person  of  the  second  Trinity  is  God.  Had  the 
term  been  Father,  then  there  might  have  been  an  iden- 
tity between  the  second  Person  in  the  second  Trinity 
and  the  first  Person  of  the  first  Trinity.  Not  only  are 
the  terms  different  but  the  second  Person  of  the  second 
Trinity  is  God.  God  js  not  a  Person  of  a  Trinity  at 
all.  God  is  the  whole  Trinity  not  a  Person  in  the 
Trinity.  Tlie  Trinity  is  in  God,  and  God,  in  whom  a 
Trinity  of  Persons  exists,  cannot  be  one  of  the  Persons 
in  himself. 

The  form  of  benediction  then,  "The  grace  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  com- 
munion of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  contains  a  strong  argument 
against  the  Trinity,  instead  of  being  a  strong  argument 
for  it.  Not  only  is  the  subject  of  the  second  clause 
God — "  the  love  of  God," — but  the  subjects  of  the  first 
and  third  clauses  are  shut  out  of  Deity  by  the  particle 
and — "  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  fellowship  or  comniunion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all."  As  it  happens,  by  the 
comparison  of  another  passage,  we  have  the  means  of 
determining  the  relations  of  these  two  Persons,  and 
3* 


30  THE   SUPREMACY  AND   SOLE  DIVINITY 

whether  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  a  Person  in  God  or 
not.  In  our  text  it  is  said,  "  To  us  there  is  one  God, 
the  Father,  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ."  He  is  not 
God,  then,  or  a  Person  in  God,  but  a  person  entirely 
distinct.  There  is  another  passage  which  strongly  con- 
firms this  distinctness  in  Ephesians.  "  One  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is 
above  all."  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  thus  so  care- 
fully distinguished  from  God,  cannot  be  a  Person  of  the 
Trinity,  equal  in  power  and  glory.  This  benediction, 
then,  entirely  fails  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and,  taken  in  connection  with  similar  passages,  proves 
the  very  opposite.  Then,  as  far  as  the  third  Person, 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  concerned,  this  passage  fails  to  make 
out  even  his  personality.  Communion,  or  common 
participation,  does  not  agree  with  a  person.  It  does 
correspond  with  an  influence,  gifts  and  graces,  a  state 
of  mind  to  be  enjoyed.  Now  these  two  passages  are 
most  relied  upon  by  the  advocates  of  the  Trinity.  And 
what  do  they  prove?  Three  equal  Persons  in  God? 
No !  They  disprove  it,  and  are  both  inconsistent  with 
anything  except  the  simple  Divine  Unity. 

There  is  a  delusion,  we  fear,  as  to  the  relations  of 
God  and  Christ  to  each  other,  produced  by  the  appel- 
lations, Father  and  Son,  applied  to  them.  God  is 
thought  to  be  styled  the  Father  with  reference  to  the 
second  Person,  or  the  Son,  in  the  Trinity.  As  if  it 
were  God  the  Father,  in  distinction  from  God  the  Son. 
But  you  will  please  to  note  that  this  latter  phrase,  how- 
ever often  it  may  be  found  in  creeds  and  doxologies  of 
human    invention,    is    nowhere    found    in    the    Bible. 


OF   GOD  THE   FATHER.  31 

Christ  is  nowhere  styled  ''  God  the  Son  "  from  the  be- 
ginning of  it  to  the  end.  But  he  is  called  the  "  Son 
of  God."  A  son  of  God  has  not  necessarily  the  same 
nature  with  the  Father',  or  rather  it  is  an  impossibility 
that  he  should  have  the  same  nature.  All  derivation 
from  him  must  be  by  creation.  It  is  impossible  in  the 
nature  of  things  that  God  should  create  another  being 
like  himself.  Whatever  being  he  creates,  let  him  be 
never  so  exalted,  must  be  derived,  and  dependent,  and 
consequently  can  never  possess  full  Divinity.  God  is 
called  the  Father,  because  he  is  the  foundation  of  being 
to  everything  that  exists.  "  He  is  the  Father  of  spirits." 
He  takes  a  paternal  care  over  all  his  creatures,  and 
therefore  is  called  "  The  Father." 

The  term  "Father"  in  the  Bible,  when  applied  to 
Deity,  is  co-extensive  with  the  word  God.  It  compre- 
hends and  represents,  not  one  person  of  the  Trinity, 
but  the  whole  Deity.  And  there  is  not  a  single  passage 
in  which  it  can  be  shown  to  refer  to  a  first  Person  of  a 
Trinity.  And  here  has  been  the  mistake.  Superficial 
readers  of  the  Bible,  having  once  been  taught  that 
Father  stands  for  one  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  in- 
stead of  the  whole  Deity,  have  never  examined  whether 
this  were  its  true  meaning,  or  not.  But  let  them  take 
up  the  Scriptures  again,  and  carefully  scrutinize  every 
passage  in  which  this  term  occurs,  and  they  will  find 
that  the  Father  always  comprehends  the  whole  Deity, 
and  is  the  only  Divine  Person.  "  Grace  be  unto  you 
and  peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  Here  God  and  Father  are  synonymous,  and 
include  the  whole  Deity  to  the  exclusion  of  Jesus  Christ, 


32  THE   SUPREMACY  AND   SOLE  DIVJNITY 

for  it  is  said  "  God  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  "  That 
ye  may  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth  glorify  God,  even 
the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Here,  likewise, 
Father  and  God  are  synonymous,  and  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  not  a  Person  of  the  Trinity,  but 
the  whole  Deity.  "  That  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Father  of  glory,  may  give  you  the  spirit  of 
wisdom."  Here  God  and  Father  are  also  used  as  sy- 
nonymous, and  that  Being  is  the  God  of  Jesus  Christ. 
One  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  certainly  cannot  be 
God  to  another.  It  can  mean  nothing  else,  then,  than 
that  Father  is  co-extensive  with  God,  takes  in  the  whole 
Deity,  and  that  whole  Deity  is  the  God  of  Christ.  Of 
consequence  Christ  can  make  no  part  of  his  own  God. 
To  escape  this  conclusion  it  may  be  alleged  that  this  is 
said  of  his  inferior  or  human  nature.  Then  it  will  fol- 
low that  the  title  "  Lord  "  is  applied  to  his  inferior  or 
human  nature,  for  it  is  said  "  the  God  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ;"  and  the  title  "Lord"  as  proving  a  supe- 
rior nature  in  him,  can  never  again  be  used. 

We  now  come  to  a  passage  still  more  decisive  :  "  One 
God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all."  The  Father 
here  is  not  only  used  as  synonymous  with  God,  but  de- 
clared to  be  the  only  God.  The  other  Persons  are  of 
course  excluded.  Christ  often  in  the  gospels  addresses 
God  as  his  Father.  A  superficial  reader,  tinctured  with 
this  strange  theory  of  three  Persons,  might  suppose  him 
to  be  addressing  the  first  Person  instead  of  the  whole 
Deity.  "  O  !  my  Father,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me." 
But  when  he  examines  further,  he  will  find  it  is  the 
whole  Deity  he  addresses,  for  Christ  commands  his  dis- 


OF  GOD  THE   FATHER.  33 

ciplcs  to  pray  to  the  same  Being,  and  the  same  Person, 
saying,  '•'  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven."  But  what 
is  full  to  this  point,  is  his  message  to  his  disciples  after 
his  resurrection,  "  I  ascend  to  my  Father  and  your 
Father,  to  my  God  and  your  God."  The  Father  of 
Jesus  Christ,  then,  was  not  the  first  Person  in  the  Deity, 
but  the  whole  Deity,  the  same  Being  or  Person  who  is 
the  Father  of  Christians.  Father  and  God  are  here, 
too,  used  as  synonymous.  The  same  Being  who  is  our 
Father  is  Christ's  Father,  and  the  same  Being  who  is 
Christ's  God  is  our  God.  So  that  the  term  Father  in- 
cludes the  whole  Deity,  and  excludes  Christ.  You 
perceive,  then,  that  the  claims  of  the  Father  to  be 
the  one  God,  are  not  only  supreme,  but  exclusive. 
How,  then,  can  any  man,  or  set  of  men,  attempt  to 
wrest  the  word  Father  from  the  only  sense  in  which 
it  is  used  in  Scripture,  signifying  the  whole  Deity, 
and  fix  upon  it  a  new  meaning,  the  first  Person  of  a 
Trinity  ? 

When  Christ  is  sp'oken  of  in  connection  with  God, 
it  is  always  not  only  with  marks  of  inferiority  and  sub- 
ordination, but  he  is  expressly  excluded  from  Deity. 
"  This  is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee  the  only  true  God, 
and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  "  There  is 
one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the 
man  Christ  Jesus."  Jesus  Christ  in  both  these  passages 
is  spoken  of,  as  not  only  inferior  to  God,  but  as  making 
no  part  of  him.  Another  striking  proof  of  this  is  found 
in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians. Christ  is  represented  as  being  made  the 
head  of  a  spiritual  kingdom,  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 


34  THE  SUPREMACY  AND  SOLE  DIVINITY 

siah,  by  God,  who  subdues  all  things  under  him,  and 
makes  him  to  triumph  over  the  last  opponent,  Death. 
The  resurrection  completes  his  reign,  and  he  surrenders 
his  kingdom  to  God.  "  Then  cometh  the  end  when 
he  shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even 
the  Father.  For  he  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet. 
But  when  he  saith,  All  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is 
manifest  that  he  is  excepted  which  did  put  all  things 
under  him.  And  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued 
unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  himself  be  subject  unto 
him  that  did  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be 
all  in  all."  Is  not  the  supremacy  and  sole  Divinity  of 
God  the  Father  written  in  every  line  of  this  quotation  ? 
Can  the  Son  be  a  Person  of  Deity  equal  to  the  Father, 
and  of  course  have  equal  and  underived  dominion,  when 
his  having  dominion  at  all  is  ascribed  to  the  Father's 
having  put  all  things  under  him  ?  When  he  surrenders 
up  his  kingdom  to  God,  it  is  not,  you  will  remark,  as 
one  Person  of  a  Trinity  to  another,  but  to  the  whole 
Deity,  to  God,  even  the  Father.  "  Then  shall  the  Son 
himself  be  subjected  to  him  that  put  all  things  under 
him."  Shall  one  equal  Person  of  the  Trinity  be  subject 
to  another  after  the  resurrection,  through  the  boundless 
ages  of  eternity  ?  Impossible  !  There  must  be  a  mis- 
take. Son  must  mean  something  else  than  an  equal 
Person  of  the  Trinity.  Besides,  it  goes  on.  to  say  "  that 
God  may  be  all  in  ail."  That  person  cannot  be  God, 
who  resigns  his  kingdom  to  God,  "  that  God  may  be 
all  in  all."  Son  must  then  be,  as  it  can  be  shown  to 
be  in  the  New  Testament,  an  equivalent  to  Messiah. 
We  learn,  moreover,  from  this  passage  (what  furnishes 


OF  .GOD  THE   FATHER.  35 

a  satisfactory  explanation  of  much  of  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament  respecting  Christ,)  that  the  apostles 
consideced  him,  at  least  during  their  own  age,  and  while 
miracles  lasted,  to  exercise  under  God  a  subordinate 
agency  in  the  establishment  of  his  religion,  such  as  he 
promised  them  when  he  ascended,  "  Lo !  I  am  with 
you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world,"  or  of  the 
age.  Hence  the  form  of  their  benediction,  "  Grace  be 
unto  you,  and  peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  "  I  thank  my  God  through  Jesus 
Christ."  Can  anything  be  clearer  than  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  here  distinguished  from  God,  and  considered  as  only 
an  instrument  or  Mediator  ?  Jesus  Christ  certainly  can 
make  no  part  of  that  God  whom  Paul  thanked  through 
him.  "  Ye  are  Christ's  and'  Christ  is  God's."  Can 
one  equal  Person  of  the  Trinity  be  the  property  of  an- 
other? But  God,  when  there  is  no  intimation  to  the 
contrary,  must  mean  the  whole  Deity.  Christ  is,  there- 
fore, tiie  property  of  the  whole  Deity.  Then  he  can 
make  no  part  of  the  whole  Deity. 

But  it  may  perhaps  still  be  thought  by  some  that  the 
title,  Lord,  applied  to  Christ,  proves  him  to  be  Deity, 
or  an  equal  Person  in  the  Deity.  This  word,  however, 
has  many  meanings  in  the  Scriptures.  It  may  mean 
proprietorship,  in  the  sense  of  Creator  and  Disposer. 
It  may  mean  delegated  authority,  such  as  that  of  a 
Teacher,  Spiritual  Guide,  Controller  of  the  conscience. 
It  may  mean  a  mere  appellation  of  respectful  salutation 
between  man  and  man.  In  which  sense  Jesus  Christ 
is  Lord  of  Christians,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  deter- 
mine.    Lordship  in  the  sense  of  Creator  and  Disposer, 


36  THE   SUPREMACY   AND   SOLE   DIVIiNlTY 

is  in  Scripture  confined  to  one,  the  supreme  and  only 
God.  Christ  is  our  Lord  only  in  the  second  sense,  that 
of  Spiritual  Guide  and  Master,  a  sense  not  original,  but 
delegated  and  ministerial.  "  Ye  call  me,"  said  the 
Saviour  to  his  disciples,  "  Master  and  Lord,  and  ye  say 
well,  for  so  I  am."  "  God,"  says  Peter,  "  hath  made 
that  same  Jesus  whom  ye  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ."  You  perceive  then,  that  the  title.  Lord,  is 
applied  to  him  in  a  sense  altogether  different  from  that 
in  which  the  same  title  is  applied  to  God,  and  inferior 
to  it. 

A  few  passages  of  Scripture  are  interpreted  by  some, 
erroneously  we  think,  to  assert  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
the  Creator  of  the  material  universe.  But  even  here 
his  agency  is  only  ministerial  and  subordinate.  For  it 
was  only  by  the  Son  that  God  "  made  the  worlds." 
Other  passages  are  supposed  to  mean,  without  sufficient 
reason  as  appears  to  us,  that  Christ  will  judge  the  world 
in  Person.  But  here  too  his  agency  is  only  subordinate 
and  ministerial.  "  The  Father  hath  committed  all  judg- 
ment to  the  Son."  "  In  the  day  when  God  shall  judge 
the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ." 

We  now  come  to  an  important  topic,  the  object  of 
worship.  Worship  strictly  Trinitarian  is  impracticable. 
It  is  so,  considered  merely  as  a  mental  exercise.  Three 
objects  of  worship  in  one  object  of  worship,  is  an  idea 
which  cannot  be  formed  in  the  mind,  for  it  is  a  self- 
contradiction.  While  the  mind  thinks  of  the  Unity,  it 
must  forget  the  Trinity,  and  while  it  thinks  of  the  Trin- 
ity it  must  forget  the  Unity.  So  to  address  Unity  in 
Trinity,  is  equally  an  impossibility.     A  new  language 


OF  GOD  THE  FATHER.  37 

must  be  invented  to  correspond  to  it,  a  language  which 
must  discard  from  its  parts  of  speech  all  distinction  of 
number,  or  rather  confound  all  distinction,  and  express 
at  the  same  time,  unity  and  plurality,  and  designate  its 
objects,  as  at  once,  three  and  one.  This  idea  of  three- 
one,  is  so  anomalous,  that  there  is  only  one  word  in  the 
whole  compass  of  language  which  corresponds  to  it, 
and  that  word  is  Trinity.  But  this  word,  strange  as  it 
may  seem,  is  not  found  in  Scripture,  nor  was  it  invent- 
ed till  several  ages  after  the  New  Testament  was  writ- 
ten. It  was  introduced  with  the  doctrine  it  was  intend- 
ed to  express.  .  Unscriptural  as  it  is,  however,  it  has 
played  a  most  important  part  in  theology.  It  has  bound 
together  a  mass  of  incongruous  ideas,  which  but  for  this 
word,  would  have  dissolved  by  their  own  mutual  re- 
pulsion. The  language  of  strictly  Trinitarian  devo- 
tion, could  never  wander  beyond  this  single  expres- 
sion. Trinity.  All  other  appellations  of  Deityinust  sig- 
nify either  one  or  many.  If  a  singular  form  of  address 
be  employed,  then  only  one  Person  is  addressed,  and 
the  Trinity  is  lost  sight  of.  If  a  plural  form  were  used, 
and  the  three  Persons  addressed  at  once,  the  Unity  is 
lost.  Besides,  such  devotion,  though  justified  and  re- 
quired by  the  Trinitarian  theory,  would  be  utterly 
shocking. 

Three  equal  Persons  in  Deity  are  equally  objects  of 
worship.  But  in  order  to  worship  them  at  once,  plural 
forms  of  address  must  be  used.  This  however  would 
reveal  the  revolting  nature  of  the  whole  system.  In 
order  to  escape  this,  those  who  worship  by  a  form  care- 
fully constructed  upon  the  model  of  the  creeds,  instead 
4 


38  THE  SUPREMACY  AND  SOLE  DIVINITY 

of  the  suggestions  of  their  own  minds  and  the  language 
of  the  Bible,  address  each  Person  in  succession,  "  O 
God  the  Father  of  Heaven,  have  mercy  upon  us  miser- 
able sinners."  "  O  God  the  Son,  Redeemer  of  the 
world,  have  mercy  upon  us  miserable  sinners."  "O 
God  the  Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  have  mercy  upon  us,  miserable  sinners."  Al- 
though in  this  way,  the  shock  of  plurality  of  address  is 
avoided,  unity  of  idea  is  quite  as  efiectually  destroyed. 
Here  are  three  objects  of  worship,  not  one  object.  It 
is  true  the  attempt  is  afterwards  made  to  unite  them  in 
one.  "  O  holy,  blessed  and  glorious  Trinity,  three  Per- 
sons in  one  God,  have  mercy  on  us."  But  instead  of 
uniting  them,  it  introduces  a  fourth  object.  For  cer- 
tainly a  Trinity  comprehending  the  three  Persons,  must 
be  quiti3  as  different  from  each,  as  they  are  from  each 
other,  and  therefore  constitute  another  and  distinct  ob- 
ject of  worship. 

Those  on  the  other  hand,  who  pray  according  to  the 
suggestions  of  that  "  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  which 
giveth  man  understanding,"  and  the  impressions  which 
are  left  upon  the  mind  by  the  word  of  God,  find  their 
devotions  directing  themselves  to  one  object  and  that 
object  is  the  Father.  But  this  they  do  in  utter  con- 
demnation of  their  creed.  Their  creed  declares,  there 
are  three  Persons  in  the  Deity,  equal  in  power  and 
glory,  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  neither 
of  whom  has  in  fact,  or  ought  to  have  in  regard,  any 
preeminence  over  the  others.  How  can  they  then  se- 
lect one  of  these  Persons  and  make  him  almost  the  only 
object  of  address  ?     Why  do  they  choose  the  Father  in 


OF  GOD  THE   FATHER.  39 

preference  to  the  other  two  ?  How  can  they  reconcile 
it  to  their  consciences,  thus  to  defraud,  if  I  may  so 
speak,  the  second  and  third  Persons  of  the  glory  due 
them,  by  not  addressing  them  in  their  prayers  till  the 
very  close,  in  a  kind  of  doxology  ?  Ii  can  arise  from 
this  fact  alone,  that  all  men  at  heart,  hold  the  simple 
unity  of  God.  The  fact  is,  that  the  supremacy  of  the 
Father  is  so  deeply  impressed  upon  the  Scriptures,  that 
the  mind  cannot  forget  or  overlook  it.  Though  men 
may  say  in  their  creeds,  that  the  second  and  third  Per- 
sons are  equal  to  the  first,  they  do  not  worship  them  as 
if  they  were  equal,  for  they  do  not  address  either  of 
them  as  often  or  as  exclusively  as  the  first.  A  prayer 
which  should  begin  by  addressing  Christ  or  the  Holy 
Ghost  individually,  would  sound  strange  and  shocking 
even  to  the  most  determined  Trinitarian,  and  yet  if  that 
faith  were  true,  it  would  be  just  as  proper,  nay,  as  often 
required,  as  to  address  God  the  Father, 

Do  not  even  those  who  hold  the  Trinitarian  creed, 
show  by  their  language,  that  they  at  heart,  believe  in 
the  supremacy  of  the  Father  when  they  pray  ?  They 
thank  the  Father  for  sending  the  Son.  Why  not  as 
naturally  and  as  often,  if  the  Son  be  equal  with  the 
Father,  thank  him  for  coming  to  the  relief  of  human 
misery  ?  They  pray  God  to  send  them  the  Holy  Spirit : 
would  they  do  this  unless  they  thought  the  Father 
supreme,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  subordinate  ?  If  they 
thought  the  Holy  Spirit  equal  and  as  much  an  object  of 
prayer,  would  they  not  as  naturally  and  spontaneously 
address  themselves  directly  to  him,  and  implore  him  to 
come? 


40  THE  SUPREMACY  AND  SOLE  DIVINITY 

The  truth  is,  men  have  modelled  their  prayers  more 
on  the  Scriptures,  than  they  have  on  their  creeds ;  and 
then  they  could  not  fail  to  remember  there  is  not  one 
single  instance  of  a  prayer  or  devotion  being  addressed 
to  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  could  not  fail  to  remember, 
that  in  a  large  proportion  of  the  places^  where  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  spoken  of,  not  even  personality  seems  to  be 
ascribed  to  it.  It  is  represented,  to  be  the  power,  or 
influence,  or  energy  of  God.  In  framing  their  prayers. 
Christians  could  not  forget,  that  Christ  commanded  his 
disciples  just  before  he  left  them,  to  ask  nothing  of  him, 
when  he  should  be  exalted  to  heaven,  but  to  pray  to 
the  Father  in  his  name. 

They  could  not  forget  that  the  apostles  obeyed  this 
command,  and  immediately  after  his  ascension,  so  far 
from  praying  to  a  Trinity,  they  were  heard  to  use  these 
remarkable  words,  "  Lord,  thou  art  God,  who  hast  made 
heaven  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is, 
grant  unto  thy  servants  that  with  boldness  they  may 
speak  thy  word,  by  stretching  forth  thy  hand  to  heal, 
and  that  signs  and  wonders  may  be  done  in  the  name 
of  thy  holy  child  Jesus." 

But  you  say,  that  there  are  some  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  would  lead  you  to  think  there  were  three 
Persons  in  the  Divine  nature,  and  that  Christ  was  one 
of  those  Persons,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  another.  There 
are  other  passages  which  seem  to  teach  that  God  sub- 
sists in  one  Person,  and  that  one  Person  is  the  Father. 
Both  of  them  cannot  be  true.  There  is  a  Trinity  or  an 
Unity  in  the  Divine  nature.  Now  which  is  to  be  be- 
lieved ?     In  making  up  your  mind  there  are  these  two 


*  OV  GOD  THE   FATHER.  41 

material  considerations  to  guide  you.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  not  directly  asserted  in  any  of  the  pas- 
sages which  are  brought  to  prove  it.  It  is  only  inferred. 
It  is  drawn  from  them  as  an  inference,  which  seems 
more  or  less  certain  to  difTerent  individuals,  and  there- 
fore may  not  be  a  true  inference.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Father  being  the  one  and  only  true  God,  is  expressly 
asserted  in  so  many  words.  "  To  us  there  is  but  one 
God,  the  Father."  Here  the  Unitarian  doctrine  is  not 
inferred,  but  is  in  so  many  words  asserted.  The  choice, 
therefore,  is  between  inference,  on  the  one  side,  and 
unequivocal  assertion,  on  the  other. 

The  second  consideration  is,  that  there  are  but  very 
few  passages'  in  the  Bible,  where  the  doctrine  of  the* 
Trinity  is  pretended  to  be  contained,  even  by  implica- 
tion ;  whereas  the  Unity  and  supremacy  of  God  the 
Father  is  the  common  and  prevailing  doctrine  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in 
which  he  is  emphatically  called  the  one  or  only  God, 
amount  to  seventeen. 

There  is  not  a  passage  in  the  Bible  which  unequivo- 
cally asserts  the  Trinity.  There  are  many  which  une- 
quivocally assert  the  Unity.  In  order  to  reconcile 
Scripture  with  itself,  either  the  passages  which  are 
thought  to  teach  the  Trinity  must  be  explained  in  con- 
sistency with  the  Unity,  or  those  which  declare  the 
Unity  must  have  a  sense  put  upon  them  which  will  not 
contradict  the  Trinity.  Is  it  not  more  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  Trinity — which  is  an  inference,  mere- 
ly, from  a  very  few  texjs  of  Scripture — may  be  a  mis- 
taken inference,  than  to  suppose  there  can  be  any  mis- 
4* 


42  THE   SUPREMACY   AND   SOLE   DIVINITY 

take  in  the  overwhelming  majority  of  texts  which  une-* 
quivocally  assert  the  Unity.* 

But  the  disadvantage  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
does  not  stop  here.  There  are  difficulties  in  things,  as 
well  as  words,  involved  in  it.  Taking  the  side  that  the 
Unity  is  true,  then  the  only  difficulties  you  have  to  en- 
counter, are  in  the  interpretation  of  a  few  words  and 
sentences.  In  the  thing  itself  there  is  no  difficulty. 
That  there  should  be  one  God  in  one  Person,  is  all 
plain  and  reasonable,  and  intrinsically  probable.  It  in- 
volves no  mystery,  or  contradiction. 

But  taking  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  true,  there 
are  not  only  all  the  difficulties  in  words  wTiich  exist  in 
those  passages  which  assert  that  there  is  but  one  God, 
an4  the  Father  alone  is  that  God,  but  there   are   diffi-, 

*  "Those  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  Father  is 
styled  one,  or  only  God,  are  in  number  seventeen. 

"  Those  passages  where  he  is  styled  God  absolutely,  by  way  of  emi- 
nence and  supremacy,  are  in  number  three  hundred  and  twenty. 

"  Those  passages  where  he  is  styled  God,  with  peculiarly  high  titles 
and  epithets,  or  attributes,  are  in  number  one  hundred  and  five. 

"  Those  passages  wherein  it  is  declared  that  all  prayers  and  praises 
ought  to  be  offered  to  him,  and  that  every  thing  ought  to  be  ultimately 
directed  to  his  honor  and  glory,  are  in  number  ninety. 

"  Passages  wherein  the  Son  is  declared,  positively,  and  by  the  clearest 
implication,  to  be  subordinate  to  the  Father,  deriving  his  being  from 
him,  receiving  from  him  his  Divine  power,  and  acting  in  all  things 
wholly  according  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  are  in  number  above  three 
hundred. 

"  Of  thirteen  hundred  passages  in  the  New  Testament  wherein  the 
word  God  is  mentioned,  not  one  of  them  necessarily  implies  a  plurality 
of  persons. 

"  To  which  may  be  added  about  two  thousand  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament,  in  which  the  Unity  of  God  is-either  positively  expressed,  or 
evidently  implied." — Grundy's  Lectures. 


OF  .GOD  THE  FATHER.  43 

culties  in  things.  A  doctrine  is  asserted  which  is,  in 
itself,  essentially  incredible.  It  is  strange,  unreasonable 
and  contradictory.  A  Being  is  presented  to  our  faith, 
made  up  of  elements  entirely  inconsistent  with  each 
other,  one  and  yet  three,  three  Persons,  and  yet  one 
Being,  a  Trinity,  the  first  Person  of  which,  in  the  ideas 
of  all,  has  some  sort  of  a  preeminence  over  the  other 
two,  and  yet  either  of  the  other  two  is  of  equal  power 
and  glory.  One  is  Son  to  another,  and  yet  as  ancient 
as  his  Father.  The  first  Person  is  said  to  do  things  by 
the  instrumentality  of  the  other  two,  and  yet  they  have 
equal  and  original  agency  in  all  things  with  the  first. 

The  second  Person  becomes  so  connected  with  a 
human  soul,  as  to  make  one  Person,  and  yet  the  human 
soul  is  ignorant  of  what  is  known  to  the  Divine  mind. 
This  complex  person,  made  up  of  the  Divine  and  hu- 
man mind,  sometimes  acts  and  speaks,  and  then  is  laid 
aside,  and  the  human  mind  acts  and  speaks,  all  without 
giving  any  warning  of  such  a  change.  Now  we  say, 
that  such  a  doctrine  as  this  so  mystifies  the  nature  of 
the  Deity,  so  mingles  and  confuses  the  nature  of  things, 
so  destroys  the  boundaries  of  the  identity  and  individu- 
ality of  mind  or  spirit,  that  it  raises  and  encounters  in- 
superable difficulties  in  things,  becomes  essentially  in- 
conceivable and  incredible.  The  proposition  that  God 
is  a  Spirit,  meaning  one  pure  and  underived  mind,  is 
possible,  is  conceivable,  is  probable,  is  agreeable  to  the 
analogy,  reason  and  nature  of  things.  But  that  God  is 
a  Trinity  of  Persons,  is  supported  by  no  analogy,  is  in- 
conceivable, contradictory,  and  incredible.  So  that, 
besides  the  difficulties  in  words,  arising  from   the  few- 


44  SOLE  DIVINITY  OF   GOD  THK   FATHER. 

ness  of  the  passages  in  which  it  is  found  only  by  in- 
ference, and  its  contradiction  to  a  much  greater  number 
of  texts,  where  the-  Unity  is  expressly,  and  in  so  many 
words  declared,  it  encounters  and  involves  insuperable 
difficulties  in  things,  the  very  things  which  it  asserts. 
To  overcome  such  difficulties  in  the  nature  of  the  propo- 
sition which  it  sustains,  the  number  of  passages  in  which 
it  is  found  ought  to  be  greater,  and  their  meaning  more 
plain,  than  those  which  declare  the  opposite.  Whereas 
they  are  incomparably  fewer,  and  do  not  in  so  many 
words  declare  the  doctrine  at  all. 

I  appeal  to  all  who  hear  me  this  night,  if  the  great 
proposition  with  which  we  started  is  not  fully  made  out, 
that  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father — that  in  the 
Scriptures  undivided  Unity  and  supremacy  are  ascribed 
to  Him.  He  is  the  only  Fountain  of  being,  He  alone 
hath  immortality  abiding  in  himself,  the  blessed  and 
only  Potentate,  the  only  wise  God,  the  only  true  God, 
our  Saviour. 


LECTURE   II 


THE  SECOND  PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

JOHN,  XIV.  10. 

"  BeLIEVEST  thou  not  that  I  AM  IN  THE  FATHER,  AND  THE  FATHER 
IN  ME  1  THE  WORDS  THAT  I  SPEAK  UNTO  TOC,  I  SPEAK  NOT  OF  MY- 
SELF :  BUT  THE  FATHER  THAT  DWELLETH  IN  ME,  HE  DOETH  THE 
WORKS." 

The  Trinitarian  system  supposes  a*  second  Person  in 
God  called  the  Son,  who  became  incarnate  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  and  joined  with  his  humdn  soul,  made  one 
Person  with  him.  The  truth  of  the  whole  system  de- 
pends upon  the  truth  of  this  hypothesis.  To  establish 
its  truth  therefore,  you  must  identify  and  prove  by 
proper  evidence,  the  existence  of  such  a  Person  in 
God,  and  such  a  Person  in  Christ.  If  that  proof  fails, 
the  whole  system  falls.  A  course  of  argument  then 
which  shall  show  that  there  is  no  sufficient. evidence  of 
the  existence  of  this  Person  will  overthrow  the  system. 
The  existence  of  God  the  Father  is  certain.  The  ex- 
istence of  one  of  Christ's  natures  is  certain.  The  ex- 
istence of  a  second  Person  in  God  and  Christ  is  an  hy- 
pothesis which  may,  or  may  not  be  true.  If  no  trace 
of  the  agency  of  a  second  Person  can  be  found  in  Christ, 


46  THE   SECOND  PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY. 

and  everything  in  him  requiring  divine  power  and 
knowledge  appears  to  be  the  agency  of  God  the  Father, 
and  is  affirmed  to  be  so,  and  referred  by  Christ  solely 
to  him  ;  then  the'supposition  of  any  other  Person  be- 
sides Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  God  the  Father,  becomes 
a  mere  hypothesis,  unsupported  by  evidence,  and  dis- 
proved by  all  the  evidence  we  have  in  the  case. 

The  precise  point  then  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your 
attention  this  evening  is  this,  "  Who  was  the  Divine 
Nature  in  Christ  ?  Was  it  a  second  Person  in  the 
Trinity,  the  Son,  or  was  it  the  Father,  the  whole  Deity  ?" 

It  is  confessed  on  all  hands,  that  there  was  a  connec- 
tion of  Jesus  with  God,  more  intimate  than  that  of  any 
other  being  of  whom  we  have  any  knowledge.  It  was 
observed  by  a  well  informed  and  keen-sighted  contem- 
porary, when  beholding  his  miracles,  "  no  man  can  do 
these  miracles,  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with 
him."  That,  we,  all  who  believe  in  Christ,  admit. 
The  Trinitarian  system  maintains  that  there  was  a  Di- 
vine Person,  called  the  Son,  the  second  Person  in  the 
Trinity,  residing  in  Christ  and  making  with  him  one 
Person.  We  believe  the  only  Divine  Agent  or  Person 
in  him,  which  can  be  identified  and  proved  by  the  least 
shadow  of  evidence,  is  God  the  Father  the  only  Person 
in  the  Deity  ;  and  the  idea  that  any  other  Divine  Per- 
son existed  or  acted  in  him,  is  made  out  to  be  a  mere  fic- 
tion of  the  brain. 

The  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  as  it  is  called,  of  the 
second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  so  as  to  become  united 
with  the  body  and  soul  of  an  infant,  and  make  one 
Person  with  it,  we  regard  as  an  amazing  imagination. 


THE  SECOND  PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY.  47 

which  they  who  assert  do  not  feel  the  force  of  the  lan- 
guage they  use.  Not  only  so,  we  feel  it  to  be  not  only 
incredible  in  itself,  but  utterly  at  war  with  all  the  facts 
of  the  case,  as  stated  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

The  doctrine  is  thus  stated  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, the  public  standard  of  faith  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  of  the  United  Slates.  "  The  only  Redeemer 
of  God's  elect  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  being  the 
eternal  Son  of  God  became  man,  and  so  was  and  con- 
tinueth  to  be,  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures, 
and  one  Person  forever." 

"  Christ  the  Son  of  God  became  man  by  taking  to 
himself  a  true  body,  and  a  reasonable  soul,  being  con- 
ceived by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  womb 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  born  of  her,  yet  without  sin." 

It  is  thus  stated  in  still  stronger  terms  in  the  thirty- 
nine  articles  of  the  church  of  England,  and  which  is 
the  public  creed  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  the  United 
States. 

'The  Son,  which  is  the  word  of  the  Father,  begot- 
ten from  everlasting  of  the  Father,  the  very  and  eternal 
God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  took  man's  na- 
ture in  the  womb  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  of  her  sub- 
stance :  so  that  the  two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that 
is  to  say,  the  Godhead  and  manhood,  were  joined  to- 
gether in. one  Person,  never  to  be  divided,  vvhereof  is 
ane  Christ,  very  God  and  very  man  ;  who  truly  suffer- 
3d,  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried,  to  reconcile  his  Fa- 
ther to  us." 

You  will  please  to  take  notice  of  what  is  affirmed  in 
these  articles  of  belief;  the  Son,  the  very  and   eternal 


48  THE  SECOND  PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

God,  of  course  then  a  Being  who  fills  immensity  and 
inhabits  eternity,  unchangeable  in  his  being,  who  can- 
not for  a  single  moment  be  included  within  any  place, 
nor  excluded  from  any,  took  man's  nature  in  the  womb 
of  the  virgin,  so  that  two  whole  and  perfect  natures, 
the  Godhead  and  manhood  were  joined  together  in  one 
Person,  never  to  be  divided,  whereof  is  one  Christ,  very 
God  and  very  man,  who  truly  suffered,  was  dead  and 
buried.  This  proposition  is  to  my  mind  truly  amazing. 
That  an  infinite,  omnipresent,  unchangeable  Being, 
should  be  enclosed  with  a  human  soul  in  the  body  of 
an  unborn  infant ;  and  that  this  infinite  Spirit,  and  this 
infantine  soul,  made  one  Person,  is  a  proposition,  which 
nothing  but  the  fact  of  its  having  been  held  by  men  of 
sincere  piety,  and  thus  having  been  in  some  measure 
associated  with  our  venerable  religion,  could  induce  us 
to  treat  with  any  respect.  Abstractly  speaking,  the 
thing  is  utterly  monstrous  and  incredible.  It  must  re- 
quire for  its  support,  nothing  less  ihan  a  plain,  categori- 
cal, unequivocal  declaration  in  the  word  of  God. 

Before  we  admit  it  as  true,  we  must  examine  the  ev- 
idence on  which  it  rests,  and  the  evidence  if  there  be 
any  against  it. 

Let  us  then  turn  to  the  sacred  Scriptures,  let  us  ex- 
amine the  record  of  the  birth  of  Jesus.  The  incarna- 
tion of  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  li  it  really 
took  place,  must  be  there  unequivocally  declared.  The 
extraordinary  circumstances  which  attended  his  birth 
are  thus  recorded  by  Matthew.  The  information  con- 
veyed to  Joseph  in  a  dream  is  this,  "  Joseph,  thou  son 
of  David,  fear  not  to  take  unto  thee  Mary  thy  wife ; 


THK   SECOND   PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY.  49 

for  that  which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  she  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  thou  shall  call  his 
name  Jesus  :  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their 
sins.  Now  all  this  was  done,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 
whicl)  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying, 
Behold,  a  virgin  shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring 
forth  a  son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel, 
which  being  interpreted,  is  God  with  us."  Luke's  ac- 
count of  the  matter  is  this.  "  And  the  Angel  said  unto 
Tier, 'Fear  not  Mary,  for  thou  hast  found  favor  with 
God :  and  behold  thou  shall  conceive  in  thy  womb  and 
bring  forth  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Jesus.  He 
shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  High- 
est ;  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne 
of  his  father  David.  And  he  shall  reign  over  the  house 
of  Jacob  forever,  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no 
end.'  Then  said  Mary  unto  the  angel.  How  shall  this 
be,  seeing  I  know  not  a  man  ?  And  the  angel  answer- 
ed and  said  unto  her,  The  Holy  Ghost,  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  highest  shall  overshadow 
thee,  therefore  also  that  holy  thing,  which  shall  be  born 
of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 

This  is  the  record,  and  is  there  the  least  intimation 
in  it  of  a  Trinity,  three  Persons  in  the  Divine  nature, 
is  there  one  word  said  from  the  beginning  to  the  end, 
of  the  incarnation  of  the  second  Person  in  the  Trinity, 
an  almighty  and  infinite  Being?  Is  there  one  word 
said  of  the  incarnation  of  God  at  all  ?  Is  there  any  in- 
timation that  this  child  should  have  more  than  one  na- 
ture, tiiat  his  person  should  be  made  up  of  one  infinite, 
and  one  finite  spirit  ?     Is  ii  not  strange,  that  the  angel 


50  THE   SECOND   PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY. 

should  have  omitted  so  material  a  circumstance,  as  the 
incarnation  of  one  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  r 

What  then  do  these  passages  declare?  Simply  that 
God  brought  the  infant  Jesus  into  existence,  in  an  ex- 
traordinary, instead  of  the  ordinary  manner,  that  the 
virgin  conceived  by  miraculous  power  instead  of  the 
ordinary  means.  It  is  not  pretended  that  parents  pro- 
duce the  souls  of  their  children.  God  is  the  Father  of 
Spirits.  He  puts  the  soul  into  the  body.  And  does 
it  change  the  nature  of  the  soul,  whether  it  is  put  into 
a  body  formed  by  God  by  an  ordinary  process,  or  by 
miracle  ?  Adam  and  Eve  began  to  exist  in  a  miracu- 
lous manner,  their  bodies  were  formed  by  miracle.  Did 
that  miraculous  formation  prove  an  incarnation  of  one 
of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  in  them  ? 

In  the  second  place,  I  would  have  you  take  particular 
notice,  that  in  consequence  of  this  conception  by  the  im- 
mediate power  of  God,  "  therefore  that  holy  thing,  which 
shall  be  born  of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 
Here  then,  Son  of  God  is  applied  to  Jesus,  because  he 
began  to  exist  miraculously.  In  the  same  manner  it  is 
applied  to  Adam  for  the  same  reason.  In  the  cata- 
logue of  the  progenitors  of  Christ,  it  is  said,  "  which 
was  the  son  of  Adam  which  was  the  Son  of  God."  The 
angel  says  nothing  of  this  infant's  having  two  natures. 
He  was  to  be  called  Son  of  God  not  upon  account  of 
his  nature,  but  the  manner  in  which  that  nature  had 
.begun  to  exist. 

The  words  of  the  angel  then,  fail  entirely  to  prove 
any  plurality  of  the  Divine  nature,  or  any  incarnation 
of  the  second  Person.     Not  only  so,  they  are  directly 


THE   SECOND   PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY.  51 

at  war  with  it.  To  have  corresponded  with  that  hy- 
pothesis he  shoald  have  said  to  Mary,  "  The  second 
Person  in  the  Trinity  called  the  Son,  is  to  beconie  in- 
carnate in  the  infant  that  is  to  be  born  of  thee.  There- 
fore he  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  But  on  the 
other  hand,  he  says,  it  is  the  infant's  miraculous  begin- 
ning that  gives  Jesus  the  title,  Son  of  God.  Affirming 
this,  he  denies  the  other.  So  according  to  the  angel,  Son 
of  God,  when  applied  to  Christ,  dates  no  farther  back 
than  his  birth,  instead  of  running  back  before  all  worlds. 
A  name  arising  out  of  the  circumstances  attending  the 
birth  of  a  child,  is  carried  back  into  the  ages  of  eternity, 
and  made  to  introduce  confusion  into  the  unity  and 
simplicity  of  the  Divine  nature. 

The  only  thing  additional  which  Matthew  mentions, 
is  the  coincidence  between  this  event  and  one  which  is 
related  to  have  taken  place  in  the  days  of  Ahaz,  king 
of  Judah.  He  was  greatly  distressed  by  the  invasion 
of  two  confederate  kings  against  his  land.  The  prophet 
Isaiah  is  sent  to  him  with  a  message  of  comfort,  and 
tells  him  as  a  sign  of  deliverance,  "  A  virgin  shall  con- 
ceive and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Immanu- 
cl  ;  for  before  the  child  shall  know  to  choose  the  good 
and  refuse  the  evil,  the  land,  which  thou  abhorrest,  shall 
be  forsaken  of  both  her  kings."  The  child  was  to  be 
called  Immanuel,  or  God  with  us,  or  God  is  with  us, 
why  ?  Because  he  was  to  be  an  incarnation  of  God  ? 
No !  Because  God  was  to  bo  peculiarly  with  his  peo- 
ple. Does  giving  the  name,  God-is-with-us,  make  the 
child  to  which  it  is  given  God  ?  Besides  there  is  noth- 
ing here  said  of  a  Trinity,  or  a  division  in  the  Deify. 


5'2  THE   SECOND   PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY. 

If  it  proved  anything,  it  would  prove  the  incarnation  of 
the  whole  Deity.  Besides  the  epithet  Irnmanuel,  if  it 
proved  anything,  would  prove  two  incarnations,  one  in 
the  days  of  Ahaz,  and  one  at  the  time  of  Christ.  That 
God  the  whole  Deity  did,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  mani- 
fest himself  to  the  world  through  Christ,  is  what  we  all 
believe.  God  was  peculiarly  with  his  people,  we  all 
know,  when  he  made  through  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  his 
last  and  best  revelation  to  mankind. 

So  you  perceive  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  of 
the  second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  as  stated  in  those  ar- 
ticles of  faith  I  read  to  you,  utterly  fails  of  support  in 
that  very  part  of  Scripture,  where  we  should  most  nat- 
urally look  for  it,  in  the  accounts  of  the  conception  and 
birth  of  Jesus. 

Let  us  then  trace  on  his  history.  Is  it  supposable 
that  an  infinite  God  could  be  so  joined  to  the  soul  of 
an  infant  and  child,  as  not  to  have  manifested  his  pres- 
ence ?  Yet  we  hear  nothing  of  it.  The  next  we  hear 
of  Jesus  is  at  twelve  years  of  age.  Then  he  displayed 
an  uncommon  maturity  of  mind  and  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  nothing  that  we  can  fix  upon  as  mirac- 
ulous. The  mind  of  Jesus,  I  have  no  doubt,  indepen- 
dentFy  of  all  miraculous  endowments,  was  of  the  high- 
est order.  Everything  about  him  seems  to  evince  it. 
He  was  raised  up  by  God  for  an  especial  purpose.  He 
might  then  have  been  preeminently  endowed.  Much 
of  the  efficacy  of  his  religion  was  to  depend  on  the  per- 
fection of  his  character.  He  may  therefore  have  had 
mental  and  moral  powers  far  above  those  of  mankind 
in   general.     What,  or  whether  any  miraculous  action 


THE   SECOND  PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY.  53 

of  God  upon  his  mind  previous  to  his  baptism  took 
place,  we  are  not  informed,  or  whether  he  had  any  in- 
timation of  the  office  he  was  to  filL  One  thing  how- 
ever is  certain.  That  is  recorded  of  him  at  twelve 
years  of  age,  which  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  sup- 
position that  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity  made  a 
part  of  his  person.  "And  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom 
and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man."  A  per- 
son, who  was  already  infinite  in  knowledge,  could  not 
increase  in  wisdom  ;.  and  the  second  Person  in  the  God- 
head could  hardly  increase  in  favor  with  the  whole  De- 
ity. If  it  be  answered  that  it  was  the  human  nature, 
— then  we  ask,  what  kind  of  a  connection  of  two  minds 
in  one  person  that  could  be,  or  of  what  advantage,  in 
which  there  was  no  con)munication  between  them,  if 
one  did  not  know  what  was  known  to  the  other. 

We  now  come  to  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  We  have 
hitherto  detected  not  one  particle  of  evidence  of  the 
incarnation  of  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity  in  him. 
During  his  ministry,  it  was  to  have  been  expected  that 
this  Divine  Person  would  have  manifested  himself,  al- 
though he  had  not  done  so  before.  It  was  to  have 
been  expected,  that  it  was  for  the  sake  of  this  ministry 
that  he  had  become  connected  with  the  soul  of  Jesus. 
It  was  to  have  been  expected  that  this  Divine  Person, 
clothed  with  omniscience  and  omnipotence,  would  have 
come  forward  to  do  and  say  those  things,  which  belong- 
ed to  the  Messiah's  office,  but  which  were  above  the 
powers  of  humanity.  We  therefore  examine  his  minis- 
try, in  order  to  discover,  if  we  can,  the  agency  of  this 
Being. 

5* 


54  THE   SECOND   PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY. 

We  shall  divide  the  ministry  of  Christ  in  this  exam- 
ination into  what  happened  to  him,  what  he  did,  and 
what  he  said. 

We  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  events  which  hap- 
pened to  him  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  supposi- 
tion, that  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity  dwelt  in, 
and  was  united  to  his  soul.  Take  for  example,  the 
events  attending  his  baptism,  and  his  induction  into  the 
Messiah's  office.  The  Holy  Spirit  descended  upon 
him.  Something  seems  to  have  been  communicated  to 
him  from  above ;  not  anything  called  forth,  which  was 
in  him  before.  Is  it  not  a  striking  fact,  that  his  mirac- 
ulous character  should  have  commenced  from  this  ?  Is 
it  not  strange,  that  the  third  Person  of  the  Trinity  should 
have  been  necessary  to  call  into  action  the  dormant 
energies  of  the  Second?  A  voice  came  from  heaven, 
saying,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  Could  this  whole  transaction  be  intended  to 
point  him  out  as  a  Person  of  the  Trinity  to  the  Jews, 
who  had  not  the  least  conception  of  any  such  division 
of  God,  or  of  any  such  Person  ;  or  was  it  to  point  out 
and  designate  him  as  the  Messiah,  by  an  appellation, 
which  the  Jews  had  long  before  appropriated  to  him 
whom  they  expected  ?  Is  "  my  well  beloved  Son"  the 
manner  in  which  one  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity 
would  be  expected  to  address  another  ?  But  immedi- 
ately after,  we  read,  that  "  Jesus  being  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  returned  from  Jordan,  and  was  led  by  the  Spir- 
it into  the  wilderness."  Now  is  it  at  all  credible  that 
Jesus,  if  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity  made  a  part 
of  him,  should  be  filled  and  guided  by  the  third  ?    How 


THE   SECOND   PERSOiN   OF   THE  TRINITY.  55 

are  we  then  to  have  evidence  of  the  fact  of  the  incar- 
nation of  the  second  Person,  "  the  very  and  eternal 
God,"  if  at  the  very  point  in  the  life  of  Christ,  where 
he  is  expected  to  act,  no  action  or  manifestation  appears ; 
and  (he  Holy  Spirit  does  all  which  he  would  have  been 
expected  to  do  ?  We  read  that  he  was  tempted.  Can 
omniscience  and  omnipotence  be  tempted?  Angels 
ministered  to  him.  Would  he  need  their  ministry  were 
he  God  ? 

It  is  worth  while  to  compare  the  account  given  here 
of  the  origin  of  Christ's  miraculous  powers,  with  that 
which  was  afterwards  given  by  the  Apostle  Peter. 
"  God,"  says  he,  "  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power."  So  Peter  supposed  and 
asserted  that  the  miraculous  parts  of  Christ's  character, 
were  to  be  ascribed  to  this  unction  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  not  to  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity  making  a 
part  of  him. 

We  read  on  one  occasion,  when  the  ship  he  was  in 
was  like  to  sink,  he  was  found  asleep  on  a  pillow.' 
Could  that  be  true  of  a  Being,  "  who  never  slumbereth 
nor  sleepeth  ?"  But  it  is  objected  that  it  was  his  hu- 
man nature  that  was  sleeping.  We  turn  to  the  original 
proposition  with  which  we  started.  "  The  very  and 
eternal  God  took  man's  nature,  and  Godhead  and  man- 
hood were  joined  together  in  one  Person,  weirer  to  be 
divided,  whereof  is  one  Christ."  If  Godhead  and  man- 
hood were  joined  together  into  one  Person,  Christ, 
never  to  be  divided,  he  certainly  acted  as  the  Christ 
during  his  whole  ministry.  It  must  either  be  true  that 
God  slept,  which  is  impious,  or  that  these  two  natures 


56  THE   SECOND  PERSON  OV  THE  TRINITY. 

were  divided,  and  the  compound  Person,  Christ,  ceased 
to  exist.  He  was  weary  on  the  well  of  Samaria.  Can 
Almighty  Power  be  weary  ?  His  soul  was  exceeding 
sorrowful.  Can  God  be  sorrowful  ?  He  was  in  an 
agony.  Can  God  be  in  an  agony  ?  The  person  then 
here  spoken  of  as  being  weary,  sorrowful,  agonizing, 
excluded,  did  not  comprehend  the  second  Person  in 
the  Trinity.  But  this  is  contrary  to  all  ideas  of  person- 
ality, and  contradicts  the  fundamental  law  of  this  very 
union,  that  it  never  was  to  be  divided. 

But  the  great  trial  of  this  hypothesis  comes  when  we 
read  of  his  crucifixion.  The  boldest  of  the  supporters 
of  the  two  natures,  is  startled  when  he  comes  to  the 
proposition  that  God  died,  or  a  Person  of  the  Godhead. 
Most  of  them,  therefore,  evade  this  awful  supposition, 
by  saying,  that  the  human  nature  only  suffered.  Then, 
according  to  this  hypothesis,  the  Person  Christ  did  not 
suffer  at  all,  for  the  union  of  the  Divine  and  human 
natures,  which  composed  that  Person  was  dissolved  be- 
fore the  approach  of  death.  Besides,  he  himself  de- 
clared "  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from 
the  dead  the  third  day."  The  suffering  was  as  impor- 
tant as  any  other  part  of  the  mission. 

Do  we,  then,  go  too  far  when  we  say  that  there  is 
not  the  least  shadow  of  evidence  in  the  birth,  the  life, 
and  death  of  Christ,  that  there  was  any  such  being  as 
the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  who  made  a  part  of 
his  person?  Do  not  all  the  circumstances  we  have 
mentioned,  negative  such  a  supposition  ? 

Let  us  next  examine  and  see  if  we  can  detect  any 
evidence  of  this  Beincr  in  what  he  did.     In  the  first 


THE   SECOND   PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY.  57 

place,  he  prayed  to  God.  Would  a  second  Person  of 
the  Trinity,  equal  in  power  and  glory,  pray  to  the  first  ? 
But  it  is  said  he  prayed  for  an  example.  If  he  prayed 
for  an  example,  merely,  he  did  not  want  what  he  pray- 
ed for.  He  prayed  insincerely.  Would  you  have 
Christians  imitate  him  in  his  insincerity,  and  pray 
merely  to  set  an  example  to  others  ? 

But  he  prayed  in  secret,  in  the  darkness  and  retire- 
ment of  the  night.  He  certainly  prayed  in  earnest 
when  he  was  in  an  agony  in  the  garden.  When  he 
retired  from  his  disciples  and  said,  "  O !  my  Father, 
let  this  cup  pass  from  me."  Is  it  said  that  he  there 
prayed  in  his  human  nature  ?  We  answer,  that  this 
resort  to  the  human  nature  must  not  be  made  too  often, 
lest  it  beget  the  suspicion  that  the  Divine  nature,  which 
was  absent  so  often,  and  on  such  important  occasions, 
might  not  have  been  present  at  all.  The  fact  is,  that 
the  doctrine  that  there  were  two  natures  in  the  person 
of  Christ,  is  not  only  utterly  improbable  in  itself,  but 
surrounded  by  innumerable  and  insuperable  difficulties. 

He  committed  his  soul  to  God  in  the  following  re- 
markable words,  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend 
my  spirit."  Is  this  the  act  of  a  God?  Do  we  detect 
in  this  any  indication  of  the  indissoluble  connection  of 
that  soul  with  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity  ?  It 
would  have  been  safe,  certainly,  in  such  custody.  I 
seriously  ask  you,  when  you  approach  the  last  scenes 
of  the  Saviour's  life,  in  his  sufferings,  in  his  sorrows,  is 
not  all  idea  of  an  impassible,  infinite  Person  making  a 
part  of  him  gradually  dissipated?  Is  not  the  crucifix- 
ion of  a  God  as  far  from  being  intimated  by  the  narra- 


58  THE   SECOND   PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY. 

tive,  as  it  is  altogether  shocking  to  all  our  conceptions 
of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  Deity  ? 

We  now  come,  in  the  third  place,  to  what  he  said. 
Would  it  be  enough  to  disprove  the  second  Person  of 
the  Trinity,  very  and  eternal  God,  making  a  part  of  his 
person,  never  to  be  divided,  if  in  the  only  person  in 
which  he  ever  spoke  or  acted,  as  the  Christ,  he  should 
expressly,  and  in  so  many  terms,  deny  his  possession  of 
every  essential  attribute  of  God,  such  as  almighty  and 
independent  power,  underived  and  independent  exist- 
ence, infinite  and  unlimited  knowledge?  If  he  should 
deny  that  his  miracles  were  done  by  himself,  and  say 
they  were  all  done  by  the  Father  ?  If  he  should  say 
that  all  his  miraculous  words  were  given  him  by  the 
Father,  and  of  course  not  prompted  and  suggested  by 
the  second  Person,  who  made  a  part  of  him,  as  is  sup- 
posed ;  would  all  this  explicit  denial ;  "  I  can  of  mine 
own  self  do  nothing."  "  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in 
me,  he  doeth  the  works."  "  Oh,  Father,  I  have  given 
them  the  words  which  thou  hast  given  me."  "  I  cast 
out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;"  and  at  the  grave  of 
Lazarus,  "  I  thank  thee,  Father,  that  thou  hast  heard 
me," — would  all  this  explicit  denial  avail  to  disprove 
the  existence  of  such  an  infinite  being  as  the  second 
Person  of  the  Trinity  in  him  ?  No !  It  is  all  evaded 
by  saying,  that  he  said  all  these  things  in  his  human 
nature.  We  shall  consider  this  evasion  of  the  human 
nature  by  and  by.  In  the  meantime  we  observe  that, 
if  the  Father,  the  first  Person  in  the  Trinity,  did  all 
that  was  miraculous  in  Christ,  if  he  communicated  to 
him  all  that  he  said  and  did,  requiring  Divine  power 


THE  SECOND   PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITT.  59 

and  knowledge,  then  there  was  nothing  left  for  the  sec- 
ond Person  to  do.  He  did  and  said  nothing,  never 
acted  in  any  case  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  or 
intimation.  We  have  then  no  evidence  of  his  exist- 
ence.    It  is  a  mere  hypothesis. 

But  he  spoke  these  things,  it  is  said,  in  his  human 
nature.  Men  do-  not  speak  in  natures.  They  speak 
in  persons.  The  pronouns,  "  I,"  "  me,"  "  myself," 
stand  for  and  represent  persons,  not  natures.  And  it 
is  the  very  essence  of  this  hypothesis,  that  Godhead  and 
manhood  were  joined  together  in  one  Person,  Christ, 
never  to  be  divided.  "  I,"  "  me,"  "  myself,"  then,  be- 
ing personal  pronouns,  take  in  the  whole  Person,  how- 
ever many  natures  there  may  be  in  it.  Whatever, 
then,  he  says  of  this  '•'  I,"  "  me,"  "  myself,"  must  be 
true  of  his  whole  person.  We  have  not  the  least  inti- 
mation to  the  contrary  in  the  whole  Gospels.  It  will 
not  do  for  a  man  to  say  "  I  cannot  think,"  meaning,  in 
his  own  mind,  his  corporeal  nature,  his  body  cannot 
think,  because  "I"  takes  in  the  whole  person.  What 
he  says  is  not  true,  unless  the  whole  person  cannot 
think,  because  "  I "  takes  in  the  whole  person.  He, 
then,  who  says  "  I  cannot  think,"  meaning  by  a  mental 
reservation  his  body,  and  not  declaring  that  he  does  so, 
equivocates,  "  palters  in  a  double  sense,"  uses  language 
in  such  a  way  that,  if  it  were  to  become  common,  would 
make  it  utterly  impossible  to  tell  what  was  meant  by 
what  was  said. 

It  is  a  law  of  veracity,  laid  down  in  the  most  com- 
mon books  which  treat  of  moral  obligation,  that  to 
speak  the  truth,  you  must  say  that  which  is  true  in  the 


60  THE   SECOND   PERSON  OF  THE  TlClNITY. 

sense  in  which  you  know  you  will  be  understood  by 
your  hearers.  To  say  that,  which,  without  further  ex- 
planation will  mislead  your  hearers,  without  giving  the 
explanation,  is  to  equivocate. 

Here  was  our  Saviour  daily  appearing  before  the 
Jews,  and  acting  and  speaking  in  the  person  of  the 
Messiah  or  Christ.  This  was  the  person  which  he  sus- 
tained, and  professed  to  be,  throughout  his  whole  min- 
istry. To  the  woman  of  Samaria  he  said,  when  she 
spoke  of  the  coming  of  the  Messias  or  Christ,  "  I  that 
speak  unto  thee  am  he."  Sustaining  and  professing  to 
be  the  same  person,  he  says,  "  I  can  of  mine  own  self 
do  nothing."  Would  he  not  be  understood  by  his 
hearers  to  be  the  same  person,  and  to  mean  the  same 
person  in  both  cases,  if  he  gave  no  explanation,  gave 
no  notice  that  he  changed  the  person  ?  Had  his  hear- 
ers the  least  notice  of  his  mental  reservation  of  the  hu- 
man nature  ?  He  never  gave  the  least  hint  in  his  whole 
ministry,  of  his  double  nature.  He  gave  not  the  least 
intimation  that  he  was  an  exception  to  the  common 
laws  of  language,  that  he  sometimes  took  in,  when  he 
used  the  pronouns  "  I,"  and  "  me,"  the  second  Person 
in  the  Trinity,  and  sometimes  only  a  human  nature. 

Besides,  according  to  the  system  we  are  contending 
against,  the  Godhead  and  manhood  composing  the  one 
Person,  Christ,  after  once  being  united,  never  were  to 
be,  and  of  course  never  were  divided.  In  order  to  have 
these  disclaimers  of  infinite  power  and  knowledge  true 
of  the  Person  who  spoke  them,  this  union  must  have 
been  dissolved,  and  the  Divine  Person  withdrawn,  just 
as  often  as  he  spoke  in  this  manner.     Now,  besides 


THE   SECOND   PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY.  61 

this  being  contrary  to  the  express  conditions  of  the  creed 
we  just  recited,  is  it  in  the  remotest  degree  probable? 
His  disciples  never  understood  him  to  have  two  natures. 
His  cotemporaries  never  understood  it.  Hear  what 
Cleopas  says  of  him  on  his  way  to  Emmaus,  '-Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  which  was  a  prophet,  mighty  in  deed  and 
word,  before  God  and  all  the  people."  Hear  what 
Peter  says,  "  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus  whom  ye 
have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ." 

Whence  then  came  this  hypothesis  of  two  natures  ? 
It  was  an  invention  of  aftertimes,  when  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  had  sprung  up.  It  was  invented  to  save 
and  support  another  hypothesis,  that  there  were  three 
Persons  in  the  Godhead.  Christ  did  and  said  many 
things,  which  contradicted  his  having  divine  attributes, 
and  which  proved  that  whatever  person  or  nature  he 
then  spoke  in  was  not  God.  Then  they  said  he  must 
have  some  other  nature  or  person  in  wjiich  he  did  not 
speak,  which  was  God.  So  one  assumption  is  brought 
to  prove  another  assumption,  and  the  other  assumption 
to  prove  that. 

Jesus  not  only  never  said  that  the  second  Person  of 
the  Trinity  resided  in  him,  and  made  a  part  of  his  per- 
son, but  he  never  claimed  the  attention  of  mankind  on 
that  account.  He  demanded  the  attention  and  obe- 
dience of  the  world,  because  he  was  the  Messiah  or 
Christ,  because  the  Father  had  sent  him.  When  he 
raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  he  prayed  audibly  to  God. 
And  why  did  he  so?  "  That  they  may  believe  "  what? 
— that  the  second  Person  in  the  Trinity  made  a  part  of 
him?  no!  "  that  thou  hast  sent  nje/'  that  is,  that  God 
6 


62  THE   SECOND   PERSON   OF  THE   TRINITY. 

wrought  this  miracle  in  attestation  of  his  divine  com- 
mission and  authority.  "  The  works  that  I  do,  bear 
witness,"  of  what?  my  Divine  nature  ?  no!  but  that 
"  the  Father  hath  sent  me."  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that 
they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  ivhojn  thou  hast  sent.''  "  The  Father  that 
dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works."  It  was  not  ne- 
cessary certainly  for  more  than  one  Person  of  the  Trin- 
ity, possessing  all  divine  powers,  to  dwell  in  him  at  the 
same  time. 

"  My  doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me." 
How  could  he  say  this,  if  a  second  Person  of  the  Trin- 
ity made  a  part  of  his  person  ?  Does  the  second  Person 
stand  in  need  of  the  inspiration  of  the  First?  Where 
is  then  his  omniscience  ?  He  said  this,  it  may  be  re- 
plied, in  his  human  nature.  But  this  refers  to  him  as 
a  teacher,  not  as  a  man.  Teaching  was  perhaps  the 
highest  office  he  performed.  He  taught  then,  if  he  did 
anything,  as  Christ,  in  his  highest  Person,  or  nature. 
And  Christ,  according  to  this  hypothesis,  takes  in  both 
Godhead  and  manhood.  You  must  admit  either  that 
he  taught  without  his  Divine  nature,  and  then  we  should 
have  only  human  authority  for  what  he  said,  or  that  his 
Divine  nature,  the  second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  was 
instructed  and  inspired  by  the  Father.  What  are  those 
Divine  attributes  which  require  instruction  and  inspira- 
tion ? 

"  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  T  live  by 
the  Father,  so  he  that  eateth  me  even  he  shall  live  by 
me."  How  could  a  Being  of  underived  and  indepen- 
dent existence  say  this,  that  he  lives  by  the  Father, 


THE   SECOND   PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY.  63 

that  is  sustained  and  supported  in  being?  In  other 
words,  how  can  an  independent  Being  or  Person  be  de- 
pendent ?  Is  it  answered  that  he  said  this  in  his  hu- 
man nature  ?  Then  let  us  finish  the  sentence.  "  So 
he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall  live  by  me."  That  is, 
he  that  cordially  embraces  my  doctrine  shall  have  spirit- 
ual life  through  me.  If  "  me  "  in  this  place  means  his 
human  nature,  then  it  follows  that  in  his  human  nature 
he  has  the  power  through  his  doctrine  of  communica- 
ting spiritual  life.  For  the  same  person  that  liveth  by 
the  Father,  communicates  spiritual  life  or  holiness  to 
his  followers.  The  communication  of  spiritual  life  is 
the  highest  office  of  the  Messiah  or  Christ,  and  must,  if 
anything  can,  require  the  whole  Person,  the  Divine,  as 
well  as  the  human  part.  But  here  it  is  said  the  Person 
who  communicales  it,  lives  by  the  Father,  is  a  derived, 
dependent  being.  He  says  in  another  place,  ''  As  the 
Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the 
Son,  to  have  life  in  himself."  The  son  is  then  a  de- 
rived, dependent  being. 

"  When  ye  have  lifted  up,"  that  is,  crucified,  "  the 
Son  of  man,  then  shall  ye  know  that  I  am  he,"  that  is, 
the  Messiah,  ''and  that  I  do  nothing  of  myself,  but  as 
the  Father  hath  taught  me  I  speak  these  things."  Is 
he  not  here  speaking  as  the  Christ  or  Messiah,  and  in 
that  character  declares  that,  the  Father  taught  him  all 
that  he  said  ?  "  And  he  that  sent  me  is  with  me  ;  the 
'Father  hath  not  left  me  alone,  for  I  do  always  those 
things  that  please  him." 

Does  he  here  derive  his  sense  of  security,  or  his  free- 
dom from  error,  from  the  second  Person  making  a  part 


64  THE   SECONJ)  PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY. 

of  himself,  or  from  the  Fatlier  who  was  with  him  ?  Is 
not  his  language  here,  even  in  his  highest  capacity,  that 
of  the  Christ  or  Messiah,  the  language  of  a  being  de- 
pendent for  knowledge  and  favor  on  another? 

"He  that  will  do  his  will  shall  know  of  the  doctrine 
whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself." 
If  God  or  a  Person  of  the  Trinity  made  a  part  of  that 
"myself,"  then  this  contrast  between  God  and  himself 
could  have  had  no  meaning.  Does  it  not  evidently 
imply  that  without  divine  inspiration,  the  person  who 
speaks  would  have  had  no  authority  ?  Is  not  this  then 
a  virtual  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  the  two  natures  ? 

But  it  is  in  vain  to  multiply  arguments  and  quota- 
tions. I  have  said  enough  already,  I  hope,  to  convince 
every  unprejudiced  mind,  of  the  utter  impossibility  of 
identifying  or  detecting  a  shadow  of  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  a  second  Person  of  the  Trinity  in  Jesus. 
We  have  proved  that  he  never  did  or  said  anything, 
or  prompted  Jesus  to  say  or  do  anything,  for  we  have 
proved  by  his  own  uniform  declaration,  that  the  Father 
was  the  only  agent  in  all  that  was  miraculous  in  him. 
It  was  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  power  of  God  communi- 
cated to  him,  that  he  did  his  wonderful  works,  because 
"  God  gave  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  him." 

What  then  becomes  of  the  Second  Person  in  the 
Trinity  ?  It  becomes  a  non-entity.  We  cannot  trace 
him  by  anything  that  he  has  done  in  the  heaven  above, 
nor  the  earth  beneath.  He  is  not  wanted  for  the  as-" 
sistance  of  God  the  Father,  nor  can  we  trace  him  in 
Jesus  Christ.  He  is  discovered  to  be  a  mere  fiction, 
or  phantom  of  the  human  imagination.     It  was  begot- 


THE   SECOND  PERSON  OK  THE  TRINITY.  65 

ten  then  by  carrying  back  the  epithet  "  Son  of  God" 
into  the  ages  of  eternity  where  it  did  not  belong,  and 
making  that  to  belong  to  the  Godhead  which  was  only 
applicable  to  Jesus  the  Messiah.  Do  you  ask  me,  what 
then  was  the  "Son  of  God,  or  the  Son?"  T  answer, 
Jesus  the  Messiah  was  the  Son  of  God.  Do  you  ask 
why  ?  I  tinswer,  I  have  already  given  one  reason.  I 
will  now  give  you  another.  Son  of  God  was  a  title 
whicii  the  Jews  bestowed  on  their  Messiah  without  any 
reference  to  his  nature  whatever.  It  was  nearly  sy- 
nonymous wilh  Messiah,  or  quite.  Do  you  ask  me 
how  I  prove  this?  Turn  to  the  first  chapter  of  John. 
There  it  is  said,  that  Philip  findeth  Nathaniel,  and  saith 
unto  him,  "  We  have  found  him,  of  whom  Moses  in 
the  law  and  the  prophets  did  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
the  son  of  Joseph."  It  seems  to  have  been  no  objec- 
tion in  the  inind  of  Philip  that  the  Messiah  should  have 
been  indeed  the  son  of  Joseph,  as  he  appears  to  have 
no  knowledge  of  his  miraculous  conception.  Nathan- 
iel comes  with  this  impression  that  he  is  the  son  of 
Joseph,  and  after  witnessing  in  him  proofs  of  miracu- 
lous knowledge,  he  exclaims,  "  thou  art  the  Son  of 
God,  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel ;"  not  a  Person  of 
the  Trinity,  for  nothing  could  have  been  more  shock- 
ing to  a  Jew  then  and  now,  "  but  thou  art  the  Messiah." 
When  Peter,  convinced  by  his  miracles,  expressed 
ins  faith  in  his  Master,  he  said,  "  thou  art  the  Christ 
the  Son  of  the  living  God."  This  is  in  Matthew. 
Mark,  in  relating  the  same  transaction,  affirms  that 
Peter  said  simply,  "thou  art  the  Christ."  This  shows 
that  '  Christ'  and  '  Son  of  God'  were  synonymous,  for 
6* 


66  THE   SECOND   PERSON   OF   THE  TRINITY. 

if  Son  of  God  added  any  meaning,  especially  such  a 
tremendous  meaning  as  a  Person  of  the  Trinity,  Mark 
would  certainly  not  have  omitted  it.  Otherwise  one 
Gospel,  which  went  to  one  part  of  the  world,  would 
have  taught  that  Peter  said,  he  was  the  Messiah  or 
Christ,  and  the  other  that  he  was  the  Second  Person 
of  the  Trinity.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  then,  that 
'  the  Christ'  and  the  '  Son  of  God'  mean  one  and  the 
same  thing. 

When  Jesus  was  arraigned  before  the  Jewish  coun- 
cil, they  asked  him,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ,  tell  us  ?" 
"  Hereafter,"  says  he,  "  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man 
sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  Power."  They  understand- 
ing him  to  say  he  was  the  Messiah,  said  all,  "  Art  thou 
then  the  Son  of  God  ?"  As  much  as  to  say,  you  admit 
then  that  you  are  the  Messiah  or  Christ.  Can  anything 
be  plainer  then  than  that  they  are  synonymous? 

Let  us  now  examine  his  own  account  of  this  matter. 
He  was  accused  of  claiming  for  himself  by  the  appro- 
priation of  this  title,  precisely  what  the  advocates  of 
the  Trinity  now  claim  for  him,  an  equality  with  God. 
And  let  it  be  observed,  that  this  interpretation,  which 
his  friends  now  put  upon  his  language,  originated  with 
his  enemies.  Did  he  admit  that  it  was  the  true  inter- 
pretation, that  he  was  equal  with  God  in  any  sense,  as 
in  truth  and  candor  he  must  have  done,  were  he  really 
so?  Would  he  who  afterwards  died  to  sustain  the 
claim  which  he  made  before  the  assembled  council  of 
his  nation,  '  I  am  the  Christ,'  would  he  have  shrunk 
from  maintaining  at  any  hazard  that  he  was  God  or 
equal  toGodj  had  he  been  so  in  reality?     Would   he 


THE   SKCOND   PEKSOx%r   OF   THE  TRINITY.  67 

have  evaded  the  true  inference  by  giving  a  wrong  rea- 
son ?  Would  the  great  Martyr  to  the  truth,  have 
evaded,  instead  of  avowing  such  an  all-important  truth 
as  his  own  divinity  ?  Impossible  !  If  the  title  Son  of 
God  had  belonged  to  him  as  the  Second  Person  of  the 
Trinity,  would  he  have  put  it  off  upon  his  divine  com- 
mission, his  having  been  sanctified  and  sent  into  the 
world  ?  His  words  then,  interpreted  according  to  the 
common  rules  of  candor  and  plain  dealing,  are  a  dis- 
claimer either  of  this  title  being  applicable  to  him  as 
being  a  Person  of  God,  or  derived  immediately  from 
him.  Jesus  answered  them,  "Is  it  not  written  in  your 
law,  I  said  ye  are  gods.  If  he  called  them  gods  unto 
whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  the  Scripture  cannot 
be  broken,  say  ye  of  him  whom  the  P'ather  hath  sanc- 
tified and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphemest  be- 
cause I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  !"  One  of  the  Per- 
sons of  the  Trinity  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world 
by  another  !  Impossible.  Sending  into  the  world 
cannot  go  farther  back  than  his  divine  mission  to  man- 
kind. 

It  is  this  expression,  "  Son  of  God,"  a  title  of  the 
Messiah  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  ordy  equivalent  to  it, 
and  so  perfectly  well  understood  at  that  time,  which, 
lianded  down  to  after  times,  has  led  men's  thoughts 
back  into  eternity  and  made  the  substratum  of  a  Sec- 
ond Person  in  the  Deity,  against  every  principle  of  the 
religion  of  the  Jews  and  every  principle  of  reason  and 
common  sense. 

When  this  substratum  is  swept  away,  by  applying 
"  Son  of  God"  as  it  was  first  applied,  then  the  Second 


68  THE  SECOND  PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

Person  fcills  with  it,  and  there  remains  to  us  '•  one  God 
the  Father,"  in  one  Person.  In  the  emphatic  words  of 
Scripture,  "  There  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  be- 
tween God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus." 

It  may  now  perhaps  be  asked  how  we  interpret  the 
first  chapter  of  John.  We  answer,  that  it  harmonizes 
with  this  explanation  precisely.  And  it  is  the  only  ex- 
planation with  which  it  will  harmonize. 

Is  there  one  word  in  that  chapter  about  a  Trinity  of 
Persons?  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  It 
does  not  say  was  the  Second  Person  in  God,  but  was 
the  whole  God,  the  whole  Deity.  As  well  might  you 
say  that  Eternal  Life  was  a  fourth  Person  in  God.  For 
John  says  in  one  of  his  Epistles,  "  that  Eternal  Life 
which  was  with' the  Father  and  was  manifested  to  us." 
"  The  Word  was  made  flesh,"  not  literally,  because 
God,  a  pure  spirit,  either  first  Person  or  second,  cannot 
become  flesh  or  anything  else,  but  dwelt  in,  or  was  mani- 
fested through  a  man  ;  as  you  will  find  that  flesh,  when 
not  contrasted  with  spirit,  generally  in  the  Scriptures 
stands  for  man,  without  regard  to  the  distinction  of 
body  and  soul.  To  this  corresponds  that  expression 
which  we  chose  for  our  text,  "  The  Father  that  dwell- 
eth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works."  "  He  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  seen  the  Father."  '•  Believest  thou  not  that 
I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me?"  He  never 
said  "  the  Son  or  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  dwell- 
eth  in  me,"  as  he  must  have  said,  had  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  been  true.  He  was  the  Son  himself,  in 
virtue;  as  we  have  seen,  of  being  the  Messiah. 


THE   SECOND   PERSON   OF  THE  TRINITY.  69 

We  now  leave  it  lo  all  candid  minds  to  say,  if  we 
have  not  made  out  the  positions  we  laid  down  at  the 
commencement  of  this  discourse,  that  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  such  a  Being  as  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Trinity  in  Christ.  That  we  have  indeed 
no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  such  a  Person  at  all. 
That  the  Father  was  the  Agent,  and  the  only  Agent, 
in  all  that  was  miraculous  in  what  he  did  and  said.  In 
so  proving,  do  we  lessen  the  dignity  of  the  Saviour? 
Do  we  impair  his  divine  authority  ?  We  humbly  con- 
ceive we  do  not.  We  conceive  that  the  Father,  the 
'hole  Deity,  dwelling  in  Christ,  is  fully  competent  to 
all  the  purposes  for  which  a  Second  Person  of  a  Trini- 
ty would  be. 

As  to  the  preexistence  of  that  pure  and  undivided 
spirit,  which  was  the  soul  of  Jesus,  that  is  another  ques- 
tion entirely  foreign  to  our  present  purpose.  Let  ev- 
ery one  form  his  own  opinion  on  that,  as  he  finds  evi- 
dence. Suffice  it  to  have  been  proved,  that  it  was  not 
God,  nor  a  Person  of  God. 

Carry  home  to  the  study  of  your  Bibles  this  simple 
proposition,  that  '  Son  of  God'  and  '  Christ'  or  '  Messi- 
ah' are  equivalent  terms,  and  were  so  in  the  time  of 
our  Lord,  and  the  New  Testament  will  be  a  plain,  in- 
telligible book,  disencumbered  of  those  embarrassments 
which  made  it  a  book  of  riddles.  All  that  confusion 
and  contradiction  which  arises  from  applying  this  term 
to  the  Godhead  will  vanish,  and  God  will  appear  as  he 
is,  one  Person,  one  Mind,  one  Spirit,  "the  blessed  on- 
ly Potentate,  who  alone  hath  immortality  abiding  in  him- 
self."    The  person  of  Christ   will  be  relieved  from  all 


70  THE   SECOND   PERSON  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

embarrassment.  That'^unaccountable  union  of  incon- 
gruous natures  will  be  made  unnecessary,  that  incredi- 
ble shifting  and  changing  of  person  and  natures,  made 
necessary  by  the  Trinitarian  hypothesis,  is  removed, 
and  we  have  him,  one  mind,  one  spirit,  "  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth, whom  God  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
with  power,  exalted  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to 
give  repentance  to  Israel  and  remission  of  sins,  so  that 
he  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost,  all  who  come  unto 
God  through  him."  It  relieves,  and  only  can  relieve, 
from  utter  inconsistency  and  contradiction,  such  pas- 
sages as  these,  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself." 
"  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  not  the  Son."  "  The 
Father  hath  given  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself,"  and 
many  others  like  them. 


LECTURE   III. 


THE    PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY    OF    THE    HOLY 
SPIRIT. 

1  CORINTHIANS,  II.  11. 

"  For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit 
OF  man  which  is  in  him  ?  even  so  the  things  of  god  knoaveth 

NO  MAN,  BUT  THE  SPIRIT  OF  GOD." 

The  subject  to  which  I  invite  your  attention  this 
evening,  is  the  inquiry,  whether  the  Holy  Ghost  or  the 
Holy  Spirit  be  a  Person  of  the  Trinity,  equal  in  power 
and  glory  to  the  Father,  or  whether  it  be  not  the  es- 
sence, or  power,  or  influence  of  God,  and  no  more  to 
be  considered  as  a  person  separate  from  him,  than  the 
spirit  or  soul  of  man  is  to  be  considered  as  a  person 
separate  from  the  man  himself.  To  those,  whose  habits 
of  thought  had  not  been  formed  by  any  other  traditional 
hypothesis,  the  passage  we  have  just  quoted  might  seem 
to  be  decisive  of  the  point.  For  it  expressly  asserts, 
that  the  spirit  of  God  sustains  the  same  relation  to 
God,  which  the  spirit  of  man  sustains  to  man.  As  no 
one  would  think  of  starting  tiie  hypothesis,  that  the 
soul  of  man  was  a  distinct  person,  so  we  should   sup- 


72 


THE   PERSONALITY   AND  DEITY 


pose  no  one  would  think  of  asserting,  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  was  a  person  distinct  from  God  himself.  But 
such  a  doctrine  has  been  asserted.  It  is  affirmed  of  it, 
that  it  is  a  Person  distinct  from  God  the  Father,  equally 
possessing  all  divine  attributes,  equal  in  power  and 
glory,  having  distinct  and  original  agency  in  the  uni- 
verse ;  of  course  entitled  to  an  equal  share  of  our 
worship,  love  and  regard.  This  position  we  intend  to 
discuss.  But  before  we  do  so,  we  would  remark,  that 
much  less  is  said  on  this  point,  than  on  the  Deity  of 
the  second  Person.  It  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted, 
that  if  the  Deity  of  the  second  Person  can  be  estab- 
lished, there  will  be  no  objection  to  admitting  a  Third. 
We  can  sympathize  with  this  feeling  in  some  measure, 
for  as  soon  as  the  simple  unity  of  the  Divine  Nature  is 
once  broken  in  upon,  we  see  no  reason  why  we  may 
not  as  readily  admit  three  Persons  as  two.  But  then 
the  wonder  begins,  why  there  should  have  been  no 
more.  There  certainly  can  be  no  peculiar  magic,  or 
any  especial  sacredness  in  the  number  three.  We  can 
see  no  reason  in  the  thing  abstractly  considered,  and 
by  one  previously  unacquainted  with  the  subject,  why 
there  should  be  three  Persons  in  the  Divine  Nature 
rather  than  five.  But  five  Persons  in  the  Divine  Na- 
ture would  be  shocking.  So,  we  reply,  would  three 
be  shocking,  were  we  not  accustomed  to  it  by  long 
familiarity  of  sacred  association. 

Another  thing  is  quite  remarkable  in  this  matter. 
There  are  many,  who  either  have  no  distinct  ideas  of 
the  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  who  do  not  re- 
gard it  as  a  Person,  but  still  call  themselves  and  claim 


OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT.  73 

to  be  Trinitarians.  How  two  Persons  can  constitute  a 
Trinity,  we  confess  ourselves  unable  to  understand. 

For  ourselves,  we  consider  it  a  matter  of  more  seri- 
ous import.  An  ©bject  of  worship  is  not  to  be  admit- 
ted into  our  minds  without  evidence,  lest  we  give  the 
peculiar  glory  of  God  to  another.  We  propose,  there- 
fore, to  consider  what  evidence  ought  to  satisfy  us  of 
the  existence  and  claims  of  such  n  Person  upon  our 
regard  as  equal  with  God  the  Father.  He  ought,  in 
the  first  place,  to  appear  as  often  and  conspicuously, 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  as  God  the  Fa- 
ther. He  ought  to  have  as  much  original  and  inde- 
pendent action  ascribed  to  him.  He  ought  to  be  as 
often  worshipped  by  inspired  persons.  He  ought,  in  a 
great  majority  of  cases,  when  he  is  spoken  of,  to  have 
a  name  and  attributes  which  imply  personality  ;  and 
the  places  in  which  he  is  spoken  of  as  an  influence  or 
power  of  God,  ought  to  be  very  few  in  comparison  to 
those  in  which  his  personality  is  implied,  or  understood, 
or  expressed. 

Now  I  would  appeal  to  all  who  hear  me,  if  when 
they  turn  inwardly  to  their  own  minds,  they  find  among 
those  ideas  which  they  have  formed  from  the  Word  of 
God,  the  same  clear  conception  of  personality  when 
they  think  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  they  have  when 
they  think  of  God  or  Jesus  ?  Is  there  not  something 
extremely  vague  in  your  ideas  ?  When  you  think  of 
the  Deity,  do  your  thoughts  as  often  fix  themselves  ou 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  on  the  Father  ?  What  can  be  the 
cause  of  this,  but  that  the  Scriptures,  from  which  you 
derive  your  ideas  of  the  Divine  Nature,  express  on 
7 


74  THE  PERSONALITY   AND  DEITY 

every  page  in  bold  relief  the  personality  of  the  Father, 
while  they  leave  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  dim  obscu- 
rity ? 

Next  consider  the  very  name  by  which  it  is  called, 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Is  this  the  name  of  a  person,  or  of  a 
thing  ?  It  is  in  the  original  language  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  the  neuter  gender,  and  the  pronoun  which 
refers  to  it  is  It.  Would  this  be  the  case  were  it  a 
person  ?  It  is  without  a  proper  name.  What  being, 
what  person  is  there  throughout  the  universe,  without 
a  proper  name  to  distinguish  him  from  every  other 
individual  ?  "  Jehovah,"  said  God,  that  is  my  name." 
Jesus  was  the  proper  name  of  the  Saviour.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  not  a  proper  name.  Proper  names,  names  of 
individuals,  do  not  admit  the  article  before  them,  un- 
less to  distinguish  them  from  others  of  the  same  name 
or  kind.  Spirit  is  a  general  term,  applicable  to  many 
separate  existences,  applicable  to  men,  to  angels,  or 
devils,  as  well  as  to  states  and  dispositions  of  the  mind. 
Holy  is  an  epithet  apparently  to  distinguish  it  from 
other  spirits  which  are  unholy.  Now  does  not  this 
very  language  imply  that  there  is  no  person  intended 
by  this  expression  ?  Besides,  it  is  quite  as  often  called 
"  the  Spirit  o/"God."  And  whenever  this  is  the  case, 
the  very  words  show  that  there  is  no  personality  in- 
tended, separate  from  God  the  Father. 

In  the  next  place,  the  Holy  Spirit  was  never  recog- 
nized as  a  Person  by  the  Jews.  This  personality,  if  it 
really  existed,  must  have  been  quite  as  necessary  for 
their  knowledge  and  recognition  as  ours.  It  would, 
one  would  think,  have  been  made  a  subject  of  express 


OF  THE   HOLY   SPIRIT.  75 

revelation.  But  we  find  that  Moses  was  entirely  igno- 
rant of  any  such  doctrine.  He  prays  to  but  one  Per- 
son, and  commands  the  Israelites  to  worship  but  one. 
Especially  is  it  singular,  that  the  Jews  should  not  have 
known  this  doctrine,  as  the  very  same  action  and  office 
is  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  Old  Testament  as' 
in  the  New.  We  have  the  devotions  of  the  most  pious 
and  enlightened  Jews  for  many  ages,  and  yet  not  one 
address  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  one  recognition  even  of 
his  personality.  And  yet  the  men  of  modern  days,  to 
whom  the  language  of  the  Jews  has  become  a  dead  lan- 
guage, profess  to  discover  in  their  sacred  books  a  doc- 
trine which  was  delivered  to  them  in  their  vernacular 
tongue,  if  delivered  at  all,  but  which  they  never  discov- 
ered. Maimonides,  one  of  their  most  learned  and  ju- 
dicious Rabbins,  and  one  who  had  a  most  perfect  un- 
derstanding of  the  Old  Testament,  enumerates  six  dif- 
ferent significations  of  the  word  spirit ;  the  fifth  and 
sixth  of  which  are  these.  "  It  signifies  the  divine  hi- 
fluence,  inspiring  the  prophets,  by  virtue  of  which  they 
prophesied."  "  I  will  take,  says  God,  of  t[je  Spirit 
that  is  in  thee  and  put  it  upon  them.  And  the  Spirit 
rested  on  them."  '•'  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me, 
and  his  word  was  in  my  tongue."  It  signifies  likewise 
will,  design,  purpose.  '•  Who  hath  directed  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord,  or  being  his  counsellor,  hath  taught  him." 
"  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  word  spirit,  when 
spoken  of  God,  is  to  be  understood  always  in  one  or 
the  other  of  these  meanings."  Such  then  is  the  dis- 
interested testimony  of  a  Jew,  a  partizan  to  none  of 
the  controversies  which  have  prevailed  among  Christians. 


76  THE   PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY 

If  such  a  person  then  were  a  Person  of  the  Trinity, 
and  of  course  an  object  of  worship,  is  it  not  utterly  un- 
accountable that  the  world  should  have  stood  four  thou- 
sand years,  a  revelation  being  made  to  man  for  a  great 
part  of  that  time,  and  mankind  not  have  been  taught 
one  word  upon  the  subject  ?  Is  it  not  utterly  incredible  ? 

In  the  next  place,  and  what  is  complete  demonstra- 
tion, there  is  no  instance,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Bible  to  the  end,  of  any  worship  being  paid  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  We  have  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New  almost  innumerable  acts  of  devotion,  but  not  one 
prayer  has  ever  been  made  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nay, 
we  have  occasional  visions  of  the  worship  of  heaven. 
But  in  none  of  them  do  we  ever  catch  a  glimpse  of  the 
third  Person.  We  have  a  vision  of  Isaiah,  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  his  prophecy,  in  the  following  remarkable 
words.  "  In  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died,  I  saw  al- 
so the  Lord  sitting  upon  a  throne,  high  and  lifted  up, 
ai*d  his  train  filled  the  temple.  Above  it  stood  the  ser- 
aphims,  each  one  had  six  wings ;  with  twain  he  cover- 
ed his  face,  and  with  twain  he  covered  his  feet,  and 
with  twain  he  did  fly.  And  one  cried  unto  another 
and  said.  Holy,  Holy,  Holy  is  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  the 
whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory."  Do  we  here  perceive 
any  trace  of  a  third,  or  even  a  second  Person  ?  "  The 
Lord  our  God  is  one." 

Another  instance  we  have  of  heavenly  worship  is,  in 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John.  He  beheld  a  door  in  heav- 
en, and  was  caught  up  and  heard  and  saw  the  worship. 
A  throne  was  set  in  heaven  and  One  Sat  on  the  throne. 
The  hosts  around  the  throne  cry  day  and  night ;  Holy, 


OF  THE   HOLY   SPIRIT.  77 

Holy,  Holy,  Lord  God  Almighty  which  was,  and  is, 
and  is  to  come.  Then  "  the  four  and  twenty  elders 
fall  down  before  him  that  sat  on  the  throne,  and  wor- 
ship him  that  liveth  forever  and  ever ;  and  cast  their 
crowns  before  the  throne  saying,  thou  art  worthy,  O ! 
Lord,  to  receive  glory,  and  honor,  and  power,  for  thou 
hast  created  all  things,  and  for  thy  pleasure  they  are 
and  were  created."  Is  there  any  mention  here  of  a 
second  or  a  third  Person  ?  How  can  this  be  account- 
ed for,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  were  a  Person  equal  to  the 
Father  ?  Afterwards,  while  God  is  still  upon  the  throne, 
Jesus  Christ  is  introduced,  in  the  form  of  "a  Lamb, 
slain  from  the  foundation  of  ihe  world."  He  is  found 
worthy  to  take  the  book  and  open  the  seals,  which  when 
he  has  accomplished,  the  whole  assembly  break  out  in 
his  praise,  not  as  God  you  will  perceive,  for  they  praise 
him  for  entirely  different  reasons  fronni  those  on  account 
of  which  they  worshipped  God,  who  had  created  all 
things.  "  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book,  and  to 
open  the  seals  thereof,  for  thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  re- 
deemed us  to  God  by  thy  blood,  out  of  every  kindred, 
and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation."  Here  you  per- 
ceive that  Jesus  is  represented  as  an  entirely  different 
being  from  God.  He  is  not  on  the  throne,  but  a  lamb 
before  the  throne,  and  is  praised,  not  on  account  of  di- 
vine attributes,  but  because  he  is  found  worthy  to  open 
the  book  of  God's  designs,  and  make  them  known,  and 
had  redeemed  the  saints  by  his  blood. 

But  where  is  the  third  Person,  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  If 
he  be  equal  to  God  the  Father,  his  glory  ought  to  fill 
heaven   and  earth,  his   praise  should  be  as  much  cele- 


78  THE   PERSONALITY   AND  DEITY 

brated  as  that  of  the  One  that  sat  upon  the  throne. 
But  in  none  of  these  visions  can  we  catch  the  least 
glimpse  of  such  a  person,  or  of  any  recognition  of  him, 
or  any  worship  paid  to  him. 

Christians,  1  think,  ought  to  reflect  much  and  serious- 
ly, before  they  add  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  number  of 
the  objects  of  their  worship.  How  can  they  worship  a 
third  Person,  utterly  unauthorized  by  one  single  instance 
or  example  in  the  sacred  Scriptures?  There  are  many 
instances  of  our  Saviour's  devotions  in  the  gospels. 
Making  any  supposition  you  please  with  regard  to  him, 
if  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  Person,  and  entitled  to  equal 
honor  and  glory,  possessing  an  equal  share  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  universe,  is  it  not  strange,  that  he 
should  not  have  prayed  to  him  ?  He  certainly  knew 
all  the  facts,  and  yet  he  prays,  "  Our  Father  who  art  in 
heaven."  He  instructs  his  disciples  to  model  their 
prayers  after  a  formula,  which  contains  not  the  slightest 
^allusion  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  At  one  time,  he  says,  "  I 
thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth."  At 
another,  "  Father,  the  hour  is  come."  At  another, 
"  Father,  glorify  thy  name."  Who  was  the  object  of 
the  adorations  of  the  first  Christians  ?  Hear  them  wor- 
shipping immediately  after  the  ascension  of  Chiist. 
"  Lord  thou  art  God,  who  hast  made  heaven  and 
earth  ;"  not  one  word  of  adoration  to  Christ  or  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit.  Who  was  the  object  of  Paul's  worship,  who 
professed  to  be  divinely  inspired  ;  "  I  bow  my  knees 
unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Jesus  is 
to  be  acknowledged  to  be  Lord,  to  whose  glory  ?  not 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  of  God  the  Father. 


'^  OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT.  79 

After  all  this  entire  negation  of  any  worship  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  is  it  not  absolutely  amazing  that  a  commu- 
nity of  Christians,  who  profess  to  derive  their  religion 
from  the  Bible,  can  be  heard  to  pray  in  such  language 
as  this,  "  O  !  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  have  mercy  upon 
us?"  Point,  if  you  can,  to  a  single  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture, in  which  such  a  petition  can  find  the  least  shadow 
of  a  precedent  or  a  justification.  Here,  then,  is  a  new 
object  of  worship,  unknown  as  such  to  patriarchs  and 
prophets,  to  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Consider  well, 
when  you  hear  this  petition,  the  commandment,  "  Thou 
shall  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt 
thou  serve."  Examine  your  Bibles,  and  see  if  you  can 
find  any  model  of  prayer,  which  contains  such  an  ex- 
pression as  this  ;  "  O  !  holy  blessed  and  glorious  Trin- 
ity, three  Persons  in  one  God,  iiave  mercy  on  us." 

I  shall  now  offer  to  your  consideration  two  passages 
of  tlie  New  Testament,  which  seem  to  my  mind  ex- 
pressly, and  in  so  many  words  to  deny  the  existence  of 
any  such  separate  omniscient  Person  as  the  Holy  Spir- 
it, a  Person  of  the  Godhead.  It  is  said,  "  Of  that  day 
and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,"  but  the  original  goes 
farther ;  there  the  negation  is  universal,  as  it  was  plain- 
ly intended,  there  it  is,  "  no  one,"  no  intelligent  being, 
as  the  enumeration  plainly  interprets  it,  in  the  universe, 
except  the  Father.  Could  this  be  the  case,  if  there 
were  such  a  person  in  the  Deity  as  the  Holy  Spirit, 
equal  in  every  attribute,  in  knowledge  to  the  Father? 
He  certainly  must  have  known  as  well  as  the  Father, 
had  he  the  same  perfections.  This  declaration  of  Christ 
denies  and  disproves  his  existence. 


80  THE   PERSONALITY    AND   DEITV 

The  second  passage  is  one  in  which  Christ  declares 
the  fulness  of  his  knowledge  of  divine  things,  together 
with  the  fact,  that  no  one  on  earth  at  that  lime,  fully 
understood  his  character,  or  comprehended  the  purposes 
of  his  mission.  "  All  things  are  delivered  to  me  of  my 
Father,  and  no  man,"  literally  no  person,  no  intelligent 
being,  "  knoweth  who  the  Son  is,  but  the  Father,  and 
who  the  Father  is  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the 
Son  will  reveal  him."  Now  neither  of  these  assertions 
could  be  true,  were  there  a  third  Person  of  the  Trinity 
possessing  omniscience,  and  an  equal  degree  of  know- 
ledge with  the  Father.  In  making  this  denial  of  univer- 
sal being,  does  he  not  deny  the  personality  and  Deity 
of  the  Holy  Ghost?  Words  to  this  effect  as  it  appears 
to  me,  could  scarce  be  plainer. 

In  the  next  place,  we  say  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not 
mean  a  person,  because  it  is  often  spoken  of  as  the  es- 
sence of  God  himself,  and  not  intended  to  be  distin- 
guished from  him.  It  is  spoken  of  as  his  Spirit,  in  a 
way  which  indicates  its  belonging  to  himself,  as  his 
property,  in  a  manner  entirely  inconsistent  with  his  dis- 
tinct and  independent  personality.  "  Whither  shall  I 
go  from  thy  Spirit,  or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  pres- 
ence," that  is,  manifestly  from  thee  ;  for  he  immediate- 
ly adds,  "  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there." 
"But  they  rebelled  and  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit."  The 
same  thing  is  in  other  places  represented  immediately 
of  God  himself.  "  Yet  they  tempted  and  provoked  the 
most  high  God,  and  kept  not  his  testimonies."  "  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  how  long  will  this  people 
provoke  me  ?" 


OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT.  81 

As  the  Spirit  of  God  is  often  put  for  his  spiritual  es- 
sence, in  itself  considered,  so  it  is  often  put  for  that  es- 
sence considered  in  action  as  pervading  the  universe, 
and  secretly  working  the  will  of  the  Deity.  In  this 
sense  it  is  synonymous  with  the  power  of  God.  "  By 
the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all 
the  host  of  them  by  the  breath,"  literally,  "  Spirit  of  his 
mouth."  By  his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens, 
his  hand  hath  formed  the  crooked  serpent."  .  "  Is  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  straightened?"  "The  Lord's  hand 
is  not  shortened  that  it  cannot  save."  Then  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  word  of  God,  and  the 
hand  of  God,  mean  all  the  same  thing,  that  is,  his  pow- 
er, his  essence  in  action.  If  any  proof  were  wanting 
of  this,  we  have  it  in  the  next  passage  I  shall  quote. 
It  is  the  angel's  message  to  Mary.  "The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  highest 
shall  overshadow  thee."  This  is  evidently  one  of  those 
passages,  so  frequent  in  the  Scriptures,  expressing  the 
same  thing  in  two  different  phrases,  of  similar  significa- 
tion. 

"If  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you."  In  another  place, 
"  If  I,  by  the  finger  of  God,  cast  out  devils."  So  the 
finger  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  the  language 
of  Jesus,  signify  the  same  thing,  that  is  the  power  of 
God,  or  as  it  is  afterward  more  fully  explained  by  the 
apostle  Peter,  "  Ye  men  of  Israel  hear  these  words,  Je- 
sus of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among  you, 
by  miracles,  and  wonders,  and  signs,  which  God  did  by 
him  in  the  midst  of  you  as  ye  yourselves  also  know." 


82  THE   PERSONALITY   AND  DEITY 

Nothing  can  be  plainer,  or  more  explicit,  or  more  de- 
cisive, than  this  speech  of  Peter,  of  this  whole  subject. 
God  the  Father  was  the  only  agent  in  all  that  was  mi- 
raculous in  Christ,  atfd  the  Holy  Spirit  is  his  power. 

In  the  next  place,  we  say,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not 
a  person,  because  it  is  used  in  Scripture  to  signify  gifts 
and  endowments,  miraculously  bestowed  by  God,  of  su- 
perhuman power,  knowledge,  wisdom  and  understand- 
ing. "  I.  have  filled  him,"  saith  God,  of  the  chief  work- 
man of  the  Tabernacle,  "  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  wis- 
dom, in  understanding  and  in  knowledge,  and  in  all 
manner  of  workmanship."  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Gather  unto  me  seventy  of  the  elders  of  Israel, 
and  I  will  take  of  the  Spirit  which  is  upon  thee  and 
put  it  upon  them.  And  the  Lord  came  down  in  a 
cloud  and  spake  unto  him,  and  took  of  the  Spirit  which 
was  upon  him,  and  gave  it  unto  the  seventy  elders. 
And  it  came  to  pass  when  the  Spirit  rested  upon  them, 
they  prophesied." 

Can  this  be  a  person,  which  God  thus  communicated 
to  the  elders  of  Israel  ?  Is  not  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
here  communicated  by  God  himself,  instead  of  the  Third 
Person  in  the  Trinity  ?  If  there  arise  any  doubt,  let  us 
hear  what  David  says  of  himself  in  this  very  matter. 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me,  his  word  was  in 
my  tongue.  The  God  of  Israel  said,  the  Rock  of  Isra- 
el spake  to  me  ;  he  that  ruleth  over  men  must  be  just, 
ruling  in  the  fear  of  God."  No  intermediate  agent  cer- 
tainly was  here,  in  the  mind  of  David.  No  personality 
of  the  Spirit  is  even  hinted.  '•'  And  there  shall  come 
forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  the  Spirit  of 


OF  THE    HOLY   SPIRIT.  83 

the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  him,  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and 
understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel  and  might,  the  spirit 
of  knowledge  and  the  fear  of  the  Lord."  These  are 
certainly  miraculous  gifts  and  power,  not  a  Person. 

Thus  we  perceive  that  we  can  detect  not  a  shadow 
of  evidence  in  the  Old  Testament,  of  the  personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  now  come  down  to  the  New. 
Every  thing  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is  directly  op- 
posed  to  this  supposition.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
any  change  took  place  in  the  Divine  Nature  at  that 
time,  so  we  are  to  interpret  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  on  this  subject  in  accordance  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Old.  And  we  find  that  as  far  as  our  Sav- 
iour is  concerned,  there  is  an  exact  coincidence  between 
the  new  and  the  old  dispensations.  Jesus  represents 
the  Father  as  the  only  agent  in  all  that  was  miraculous 
in  his  ministry.  Much  more  frequent  mention,  how- 
ever, is  made  of  the  Holy  Spirit  toward  the  latter  part 
of  his  ministry  than  in  the  former,  and  through  the 
Acts  and  Epistles,  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  Bi- 
ble. This  arises  from  the  different  manner  in  which 
the  Gospel  was  set  up  in  the  world  from  the  law.  The 
Mosaic  dispensation  came  with  outward  demonstration. 
External  miracles,  but  slightly  connected  witli  persons, 
accompanied  the  Israelites  for  forty  years,  and  demon- 
strated to  them  the  divine  origin  of  their  law. 

The  Gospel,  on  the  other  hand,  came  not  with  ob- 
servation or  outward  show.  It  was  borne  witness  to 
by  God,  by  the  miraculous  powers  conferred  on  indir 
viduals.  In  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  "  And  they 
went  forth,  and  preached  every  where,  the  Lord  work- 


84  THE  PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY 

ing  with  them,  and  confirming  the  word  with  signs  fol- 
lowing." 

The  whole  evidence,  on  which  the  establishment  of 
Christianity  depended,  was  miraculous  powers  confer- 
red on  individuals.  They  were  so  operated  upon  by 
divine  power,  that  from  timid,  obscure,  and  uneducated 
men,  they  became  bold,  eloquent  and  unembarrassed ; 
they  had  a  collectedness  and  a  wisdom  on  sudden 
emergencies,  to  which,  in  their  former  lives,  they  had 
been  strangers.  They  possessed,  likewise,  miraculous 
knowledge  and  power,  could  speak  languages  with 
which  they  were  before  unacquainted.  They  possessed 
the  power  of  communicating  these  divine  gifts  to  their 
converts,  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands  and  prayer. 
The  possession  of  these  gifts  not  only  demonstrated  to 
the  world  the  verity  of  their  commission,  but  likewise 
was  a  source  of  the  greatest  comfort  and  encourage- 
ment to  themselves,  as  it  made  them  confident  in  their 
cause,  and  certain  of  the  presence  and  favor  of  God. 
These  powers  continued  with  the  apostles  during  their 
lives.  From  this  circumstance  it  is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  so  frequently  mentioned  in  the  apostolic  writings,  in 
the  Acts,  and  in  the  Epistles. 

But  our  inquiry  is,  whether  it  is  represented  and  con- 
sidered by  the  apostles  as  a  person  of  the  Trinity  equal 
to  God  the  Father.  It  is  a  dogma  of  the  Church  oi 
England,  recited  in  their  litany,  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  But  even  this 
dogma  is  expressly  contradicted  in  Scripture.  It  does 
not  appear  that  Christ,  even  in  his  glorified  condition, 
after  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  had  the  power  to 


OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT.  85 

send  the  Spirit ;  for  he  promises  that  he  "  will  pray  the 
Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Connforter."  In 
conformity  to  this,  hear  what  Peter  says  in  his  first 
speech  after  the  ascension.  "  This  Jesus  hath  God 
raised  up,  whereof  we  are  all  witnesses.  Therefore, 
being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  re- 
ceived of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
or  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  he  had  promised,  "  he  hath 
shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  Hear 
him  on  another  occasion.  "  The  God  of  our  Fathers 
hath  raised  up  Jesus,  whom  ye  slew  and  hanged  on  a 
tree.  Him  hath  God  exalted  with  his  right  hand  to  be 
a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel, 
and  forgiveness  of  sins.  And  we  are  witnesses  of  these 
things  and  so  is  the  Holy  Ghost  which"  (not  whom  as 
our  translators  have  with  singular  disingenuousness 
rendered  it)  "  God  hath  given  to  those  who  obey 
him." 

We  deem  these  passages  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
apostles  considered  God  the  Father  to  be  the  only  agent 
in  all  their  miraculous  works,  and  if  Christ  is  at  any 
time  represented  as  sending  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  to  be 
understood,  according  to  his  own  declaration,  to  be  sent 
by  God  at  his  instance,  or  in  confirmation  of  his  mis- 
sion, and  the  establishment  of  his  Gospel.  So  are  we 
to  understand  his  promises  of  assistance  that  he  would 
be  with  and  assist  them  as  long  as  they  lived,  or  till 
Judaism  was  done  away,  and  Christianity  set  up  in  its 
stead.  God,  by  sending  them  a  supernatural  knowledge 
of  their  religion,  and  memory  of  what  Christ  had  taught 
them,  with  the  power  of  working  miracles,  supplied  his 


Ob  THE  PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY 

place,  enabled  them  to  carry  on  their  work  as  if  he  were 
still  with  them. 

And  here  comes  in  the  great  and  sole  argument  on 
which  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  founded. 
Jesus  personified  it  in  his  conversation  with  his  disci- 
ples in  his  last  interview  with  them,  when  he  promised 
them  divine  aid.  "  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
send  you  another  Comforter,"  or  more  literally,  "  teach- 
er, that  he  may  abide  with  you  forever,  even  the  Spirit 
of  truth."  Here  it  is  asked,  if  the  Spirit  were  not  a 
person,  why  should  Christ  in  this  place  have  personified 
it  ?  We  reply  that  this  form  of  speech  arose  out  of  the 
circumstances  of  the  case.  He  was  comforting  them 
in  the  prospect  of  leaving  them.  "  You  will  not  be 
forsaken,  for  my  place  as  your  teacher  and  comforter 
will  be  filled  by  ample  communications  of  immediate 
inspiration.  You  shall  not  be  without  a  teacher  and 
comforter,  for  the  divine  communications  of  knowledge 
and  power,  which  God  shall  give  you,  to  enable  you  to 
carry  on  the  work  of  preaching  and  establishing  the 
Gospel,  shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth." 

Now  this  conversation  is  the  only  unequivocal  in- 
stance throughout  the  Bible  of  personification  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  To  my  mind  it  is  infinitely  more  probable 
to  suppose  that  what  is  in  reality  a  thing,  and  is  so  rep- 
resented in  a  vast  majority  of  cases,  should  be  occa- 
sionally personified,  than  that  a  Person  should  be  almost 
universally  represented  as  a  thing,  and  in  a  few  cases 
only  spoken  of  as  it  really  is,  as  a  Person.  Exceptions 
prove  a  rule,  not  disprove  it.  If  you  consider  this  as 
proving  the  personality  of  the  Spirit,  then   you  make  a 


OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT.  87 

solitary  exception  the  rule,  and  a  vast  majority  of  cases, 
more  than  fifty  to  one,  the  exceptions.  On  the  same 
principle  you  might  make  the  Grace  of  God  a  person. 
For  Paul  says  that  he  has  done  certain  things,  "  yet  not 
I  but  the  Grace  of  God  which  was  in  me."  So  has  he 
personified  Sin  and  Death.  But  it  is  answered  that 
the  general  tenor  of  Scripture  represents  grace  as  the 
favor  or  assistance  of  God,  and  not  a  person.  So  we 
answer  that  the  Scriptures  generally  represent  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  essence,  power,  or  influence  of  God,  and 
not  a  person. 

But  it  is  always  safe  to  interpret  language  by  facts. 
What  Christ  promised  really  came  to  pass.  After  his 
ascension  the  Holy  Spirit  came,  but  how  ?  In  a  per- 
sonal form  ?  Let  us  read  the  record.  "  And  suddenly 
there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  mighty  wind, 
and  it  filled  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  And 
there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire, 
and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they  were  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Does  this  seem  like  a  person, 
or  the  miraculous  power  of  God  ?  Hear  the  interpre- 
tation which  Peter,  one  of  the  persons  on  whom  it  fell, 
gives  of  this  transaction.  "This  is  that  which  was 
spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass 
in  the  last  days  (saith  God)  that  I  will  pour  out  of  my 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters 
shall  prophesy ;  and  on  my  servants  and  on  my  hand- 
maidens I  will  pour  out  in  those  days  of  my  Spirit,  and 
they  shall  prophesy."  Can  a  person  be  poured  out  ? 
"  1  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit."  Can  a  part  of  a  person 
be  poured  out,  and  a  part  retained  ?     Can  a  person  be 


88  THE   PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY 

divided  among  several  ?  "  God  also  bearing  them  wit- 
ness both  with  signs  and  wonders,  and  with  divers  mir- 
acles and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  literally  divisions  or 
distributions  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  '•  Hereby  we  know 
that  we  dwell  in  him,  and  he  in  us,  because  he  hath 
given  us  of  his  Spirit."  Now  we  ask,  putting  all  these 
representations  together,  if  it  appears  that  the  apostles, 
who  received  the  Holy  Spirit,  understood  it  as  a  Per- 
son ?  Had  they  considered  it  as  a  Person  of  the  Trin- 
ity equal  to  the  Father,  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  they 
would  have  failed  to  have  made  him  an  object  of  wor- 
ship ?  But  they  did  no  such  thing.  While  under  the 
influence  of  this  Spirit  they  join  in  an  act  of  worship, 
in  which  they  address  themselves  solely  to  the  Father, 
and  attribute  to  his  agency  these  very  miracles  said  to 
be  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  "  Lord  thou  art  God, 
which  hast  made  heaven,  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and 
all  that  in  them  is.  And  now  Lord  behold  their  threat- 
enings,  and  grant  unto  thy  servants,  that  with  all  bold- 
ness they  may  speak  thy  word ;  by  stretching  forth 
thine  hand  to  heal,  and  that  signs  and  wonders  may  be 
done  in  the  name  of  thy  holy  child  Jesus." 

Our  argument  is  now  closed.  Let  us  sum  it  up,  and 
consider  it  in  the  aggregate.  We  have  said  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  not  a  Person  of  the  Trinity,  or  a  person 
at  all,  because,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  represented  in 
Scripture  as  sustaining  the  same  relation  to  God  that 
the  Spirit  of  man  does  to  man.  In  the  second  place, 
T  appealed  to  the  pejsonal  experience  and  conscious- 
ness of  all  to  say,  if  there  were  in  their  minds  the  same 
ground  and   material  for  the  personality  of  the   Holy 


OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT.  89 

Spirit,  which  there  is  for  that  of  the  Father  and  of 
Christ  ?  Thirdly,  we  inferred  it  was  not  a  person,  from 
its  want  of  a  proper  name,  the  name  by  which  it  is 
designated  being  the  name  of  a  thing,  not  of  a  person, 
being  in  the  neuter  gender  with  neuter  adjectives  and 
pronouns  to  agree  with  it.  Fourthly,  it  was  never 
recognized  nor  worsliipped  by  the  Jews  as  a  Person. 
The  same  general  language  respecting  its  office  and 
operations  is  current  and  common  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  yet  no  one  appears  to  have  considered  it  a 
Person,  or  other  than  the  power  or  energy  of  God. 
Fifthly,  and  what  seemed  to  us  demonstration,  there  is 
no  instance  in  the  Bible,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end, 
of  an  act  of  worship  being  paid  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 
In  the  sixth  place,  we  adduced  two  passages  in  Scrip- 
ture, which  seemed  to  deny  in  so  many  words  the  ex- 
istence of  a  third  equal  and  infinite  Being  in  the  uni- 
verse. In  the  seventh  place,  we  brought  forward  many 
instances,  in  which  Spirit  of  God  is  evidently  used  for 
his  power  or  essence,  considered  in  action,  and  in  all 
cases  spoken  of  as  his  Spirit,  in  such  a  manner  as  is  to- 
tally inconsistent  with  all  idea  of  independent  existence 
or  action.  In  the  eighth  place,  we  argued  that  the  one 
conversation  of  Christ,  in  which  alone  he  was  personi- 
fied, was  an  exception  to  the  general  tenor  of  the  Scrip- 
lures,  and  therefore  it  would  be  irrational  to  make  that 
the  rule,  and  the  other  instances,  in  which  it  is  spoken 
of  as  a  power  or  influence,  the  exceptions.  In  the 
ninth  place,  we  showed  why  Christ  used  this  language, 
and  compared  it  with  the  event,  and  the  fact  that  the 
apostles  never  considered  it  a  person. 
8* 


90  THE  PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY 

If,  when  there  is  in  the  Scriptures  such  a  mass  of 
evidence  against  the  personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  any  continue  to  regard  it  as  a  Person,  and  wor- 
ship it  as  such,  all  we  can  say  is,  they  do  so  not  only 
without  one  example  in  Scripture,  without  any  author- 
ity whatever,  except  tradition,  but  against  a  mass  of 
evidence  which,  were  it  possible  to  abstract  the  subject 
from  religious  prejudices,  would  be  absolutely  irresistible. 

But  it  may  be  asked  here,  if  the  Spirit  of  God  mean 
nothing  but  God  himself,  why  should  it  ever  have  been 
spoken  of  as  in  any  measure  distinct  ?  The  answer  to 
this  is  found  in  the  fact  that  all  the  language  of  the  Bi-  ^ 
ble  is  accommodated  to  human  conceptions,  is  human- 
ized, if  I  may  so  speak.  As  we  have  no  idea  of  pure 
spirit,  we  resort  of  course  to  something  known,  to  shad- 
ow forth  that  which  is  unknown.  In  speaking  of  the 
Deity,  we  resort  to  human  similitudes.  Thus,  in  the 
very  commencement  of  the  Bible,  the  Deity  is  repre- 
sented as  speaking  when  he  created  the  world.  Not  j 
that  he  really  spoke,  for  this  would  involve  the  suppo-  I 
sition  of  human  organs  and  a  material  frame.  But  it  is 
a  way  of  representing  the  transaction  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  be  level  with  our  conceptions  and  capacities.  I 
Just  so  is  it  with  all  those  passages  which  represent  the 
Deity  as  possessing  human  organs,  and  human  ways  of 
receiving  knowledge  by  means  of  the  senses.  Thus  he 
is  said  to  "  measure  the  waters  in  the  hollow  of  his 
hand."  "  The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  in  every  place." 
By  this  language  it  would  seem  that  the  Deity  received 
knowledge  in  a  manner  similar  to  ourselves,  by  organs 
of  vision,  and  that  he  was  in  one  place  in  order  to  be 


OF  THE    HOLY   SPIRIT.  91 

a  spectator  to  what  was  happening  in  another.  But  it 
produces  no  error,  for  we  all  interpret  it  as  a  figurative 
expression,  meaning  that  the  Deity,  in  some  manner  in- 
comprehensible by  us,  knows  everything  that  takes 
place  throughout  the  boundless  extent  of  the  universe. 

But  men  did  not  stop  here  in  humanizing  the  Deity. 
They  spoke  not  only  of  the  hand,  the  arm,  the  eye  of 
the  Deity,  but  they  spoke  likewise  of  his  Spirit  or  soul, 
as  they  spoke  of  the  spirit  or  soul  of  man.  But  in  this 
case,  men  have  ultimately  been  misled  by  their  own 
language,  by  being  betrayed  into  a  false  analogy.  Be- 
cause man  is  made  up  of  soul  and  body,  the  same  idea 
is  erroneously  transferred  to  God,  as  if  it  were  possible 
that  he  too  consisted  of  two  parts, — as  if  it  were  possi- 
ble for  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  anything  but  God  him- 
self. It  is  not  recollected  that  though  a  body  may  have 
a  spirit,  that  a  pure  Spirit  should  have  a  spirit  separate 
from  itself,  is  a  manifest  contradiction. 

Yes,  Christians,  God  is  a  spirit,  his  essence  alone 
pervades  all  space.  He  is  infinitely  present  to  every 
particle  of  matter,  and  every  intellectual  soul  through- 
out the  universe.  Every  particle,  and  every  soul  is  up- 
held in  being,  and  in  the  exercise  of  all  its  powers,  by 
him  alone.  If  any  of  these  particles,  or  any  of  these 
souls  have  varied  from  their  ordinary  action  into  any- 
thing miraculous,  it  has  been  by  the  exertion  of  His 
power.  His  volition.  In  the  language  of  the  apostle, 
it  is  "  God  who  worketh  all  in  all."  Ye  do  greatly  err 
then,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  when  ye  set  up  any 
other  Spirit  or  Person  besides  this  one  all  perfect  and 
all  pervading  Spirit  as  an  object  of  worship. 


92  THE   PERSONALITY   AND  DEITY 

Think  then,  I  beseech  you,  think  seriously  whenever 
or  wherever  you  hear  or  see  such  a  form  of  devotional 
address  as  this,  "  O  !  God  the  Holy  Ghost  have  mercy 
on  me ;"  think  if  it  be  not  utterly  unscriptural,  unjus- 
tified by  any  example  or  precept  in  God's  word  ;  think 
if  it  be  not  a  presumptuous  human  invention,  which 
well  deserves  the  rebuke  of  God,  "  who  hath  required 
this  at  your  hand  ?" 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  1  believe  to  be  a  serious 
obstacle  to  piety.  It  introduces,  as  we  have  seen,  con- 
fusion into  men's  devotions,  and  imperfection  into  their 
ideas  of  God.  Let  us  take  for  illustration,  the  Litany 
of  the  Episcopal  church,  to  which  we  have  just  refer- 
red. Three  Persons  are  introduced,  and  made  three 
objects  of  worship,  as  if  each  and  all  were  equally  God. 
"O  God,  the  Father  of  heaven,  have  mercy  upon  us, 
miserable  sinners.  O  God,  the  Son,  Redeemer  of  the 
world,  have  mercy  upon  us,  miserable  sinners.  O  God, 
the  Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  have  mercy  upon  us,  miserable  sinners." 

Now  here  are  three  objects  of  worship.  But  in  or- 
der to  make  this  worship  signify  anything,  each  of  the 
three  must  sustain  some  practical  relation  to  us,  that  is, 
the  functions  of  Deity  must  be  divided  among  them. 
Accordingly,  to  God  the  Father,  is  attributed  the  func- 
tion of  Creator;  to  God  the  Son,  the  function  of  re- 
deeming the  world  ;  to  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  func- 
tion of  "  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son," 
and  of  thus  being  the  medium  of  communication  be- 
tween them  and  us. 

If  each  of  these  functions  be  a  function  of  Deity,  then 


OF   THE   HOLY   SPIRIT.  93 

each  of  these  Persons  must  perform  all  the  functions, 
or  he  is  not  a  perfect  Deity  to  us.  If  the  peculiar 
function  of  the  Father  be  that  of  Creator,  then  the  Son 
is  not  our  Creator,  and  to  us  he  is  not  perfect  Deity. 
If  the  redemption  of  the  world  be  a  divine  function, 
and  the  Father  be  not  our  Redeemer,  then  to  us  he 
wants  just  so  much  of  perfect  Deity.  If  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world  be  a  delegated  function,  as  most  men 
in  their  hearts  believe  it  is,  then  there  is  no  propriety 
in  worshipping  the  instrument,  and  exalting  him  to  an 
equality  with  Him  who  uses  him  as  an  instrument. 
There  is  no  propriety  in  worshipping  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  God,  even  supposing  it  to  be  a  person,  for  assenting 
the  ministerial  function  of  "  proceeding  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,"  and  thus  acting  a  part  subordinate  to 
both.  Sucii  a  multiplication  of  objects  of  worship, 
and  such  a  gradation  among  them,  confuses  and  debases 
tht3  idea  of  God,  and  impairs  and  enfeebles  the  spiritual 
power  of  devotion  upon  the  mind  and  heart.  That  the 
multiplication  and  gradation  of  objects  of  worship,  is 
exceedingly  dangerous,  will  appear  from  what  has  taken 
place  in  the  Episcopal  church.  By  introducing  into 
the  Deity  a  Person,  a  part  of  whose  nature  is  human, 
the  human  nature  has  become  an  object  of  adoration. 
God  is  worshipped  for  human  incidents  and  sufferings. 
"  By  the  mystery  of  thy  holy  incarnation,  by  tliy  holy 
nativity  and  circumcision,  good  Lord  deliver  us."  God 
is  worshipped  for  having  been  circumcised  !  "  By 
thine  agony  and  bloody  sweat.  By  thy  cross  and  pas- 
sion, by  thy  precious  death  and  burial."  How  can  the 
living,  eternal  and  unchangeable  God,  be  worshipped 


94  THE   PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY 

for  his  death  and  burial  ?  Such  are  the  consequences 
which  flow  from  the  violation  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  Judaism  and  Christianity,  that  God  is  one. 
The  worshippers  of  one  God  in  one  Person  may  legiti- 
mately say  to  the  worshippers  of  a  Trinity  of  Persons, 
"  Ye  worship  ye  know  not  what.  We  know  what  we 
worship."  We  pray  as  Christ  and  his  apostles  did. 
We  pray  as  all  the  inspired  men  of  the  Old  Testament 
prayed.  We  worship  but  one  Person,  as  they  did. 
We  cannot  worship  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  not  one 
of  them  ever  did  so.  "  We  cannot  go  beyond  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  to  do  less  or  more."  We  are  commanded 
to  pray  in  the  name  of  Christ.  '•'  In  that  day  ye  shall 
ask  in  my  name."  This  we  do.  But  we  are  forbid- 
den to  ask  anything  of  him.  "  In  that  day  ye  shall  ask 
me  nothing.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  what- 
soever ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  my  name*,  he  will  give 
it  you." 

In  the  Episcopal  service,  of  which  we  have  spoken, 
there  is  a  frequent  repetition  of  the  form,  "  Glory  be  to 
the  Father  and  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  it 
was  in  the  beginning,  is  now,  and  ever  shall  be,  world 
without  end."  This  doxology  is  not  found  in  the  Bi- 
ble ;  and  the  assertion  with  which  it  closes,  is  wholly 
untrue.  There  was  no  glory  to  the  Son  or  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  all  tfie  Old  Testament.  So  there  are  four 
thousand  years  taken  from  the  beginning.  In  the 
Christian  church  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  worshipped, 
nor  ever  admitted  into  the  Trinity  even,  till  the  coun- 
cil of  Constantinople,  in  the  year  three  hundred  and 
eighty-one. 


OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT.  *  95 

I  have  but  one  more  thought  to  add.  It  is  said  in 
Scripture,  "  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of 
God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you.  If 
any  man  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God  de- 
stroy." 


LECTURE    IV. 


THE  ATONEMENT. 

2  CORINTHIANS,  V.  18,  19,  20. 

"  And  all  things  are  of  god,  who  hath  keconciled  us  to  him- 
self BY  JESUS  CHRIST,  AND  HATH  GIVEN  TO  US  THE  MINISTRY  OF 
reconciliation;  to  wit,  that  god  was  in  CHRIST,  RECONCILING 
THE  WORLD  UNTO  HIMSELF,  NOT  IMPUTING  THEIR  TRESPASSES  UN- 
TO THEM  ;  AND  HATH  COMMITTED  UNTO  US  THE  WORD  OF  RECON- 
CILIATION. NOW  THEN  WE  ARE  AMP.ASSADOES  FOR  CHRIST,  AS 
THOUGH  GOD  DID  BESEECH  TOU  BY  US:  WE  PRAY  YOU  IN  CHRIST'S 
STEAD,  BE  TTE  RECONCILED  TO  GOD." 

I  AM  not  unaware  that  the  denomination  to  which  we 
belong  have  been  accused  of  denying  the  atonement. 
I  am  persuaded  that  this  charge  is  founded  on  a  misap- 
prehension of  our  sentiments.  We  beUeve.in  the 
atonement.  We  beheve  in  it  precisely  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  stated  in  that  passage  of  Scripture  I  have 
just  read  to  you,  and  which  passage  I  believe  to  be  the 
fullest  and  most  explicit  statement  of  the  doctrine  to 
be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  The  word  atonement,  I 
scarcely  need  remind  you,  is  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment but  once,  and  there  is  used  for  a  word  in  the 
original,  which  is  everywhere  else  translated  reconci- 
liation.    Had  it  been  translated  reconciliation  there,  as 


THE  ATONEMENT.  97 

it  ought  to  have  been,  much  useless  and  unchristian 
controversy  might  have  been  saved.  We  believe  that 
there  was  an  intimate  connection  between  the  death  of 
Christ  and  human  salvation ;  we  believe  that  he  died 
for  us,  that  he  "  gave  himself  for  us  that  he  might  re- 
deem us  from  all  iniquity,  anjd  purify  unto  himself  a 
peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works."  We  believe, 
according  to  the  text,  that  "God  was  in"  or  through 
"  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself,"  and  that 
when  Christ  left  the  world,  he  committed  the  ministry 
of  reconciliation  to  the  apostles,  and  they  to  their  suc- 
cessors, and  that  all  faithful  ministers  are  Christ's  am- 
bassadors, by  all  the  means  of  persuasion  beseeching 
men  to  be  reconciled  to  God.  Men,  when  in  a  state 
of  sin,  are  at  variance  with  God.  And  the  death  of 
Christ  has  had,  and  still  has  a  powerful  influence  in 
bringing  about  an  at-one-ment,  making  them  at  one  or 
reconciled  together. 

W^c  are  wronged  then,  when  it  is  said  of  us  that  we 
deny  the  atonement.  We  believe  that  the  death  of 
Christ  has  a  powerful  influence  in  bringing  about  a  rec- 
onciliation between  God  and  man.  So  do  those  who 
censure  us.  The  only  difference  between  us  is,  as  to 
the  mode  in  which  his  death  wrought  this  effect.  Those 
who  censure  us  say,  that  the  death  of  Christ  has  an  ef- 
fect on  God  to  reconcile  him  to  us.  We  believe  that 
the  change  must  be  wrought  in  us.  We  must  repent, 
reform,  and  be  conformed  to  his  will,  before  we  can  be 
at  one  with  him.  We  believe  that  the  embassage  of 
reconciliation  came  from  God  to  man  offfcring  terms  of 
reconciliation,  and  that  Christ  was  the  am!)assador. 
9 


98  THE  ATONEMENT. 

Conditions  were  offered  through  him  to  men,  declaring 
what  change  must  take  place  in  their  character  and  con- 
duct, before  God  would  be  on  terms  of  peace  with  them. 
The  embassage  was  not  sent  by  men  to  God  to  change 
him,  and  make  him  favorable  and  ready  to  show  mercy. 
He  is  as  merciful  as  he  can  be  by  nature.  There  is  no 
change  needed  in  him.  The  Scriptures  inform  us  of 
no  impediment  or  hindrance  to  his  mercy,  except  the 
impenitence  and  obduracy  of  mankind.  Creeds  and 
catechisms  declare  that  Christ  died  to  reconcile  God  to 
man.  The  Scriptures  seem  to  us  to  teach  that  he  died 
to  reconcile  man  to  God.  So  we  are  accused  of  deny- 
ing the  atonement,  not  because  we  do  in  fact  deny  it, 
but  because  we  will  not  adopt  the  explanation  which 
others,  not  more  infallible  than  we,  choose  to  put  upon 
it.  As  well  might  we  in  our  turn,  accuse  them  of  de- 
nying the  atonement,  because  they  will  not  adopt  our 
explanation  of  it. 

What  then  is  the  commonly  received  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement?  It  is  thus  stated  in  the  thirty-nine  Arti- 
cles of  the  Church  of  England,  "  Christ,  very  God  and 
very  man,  who  truly  suffered,  was  crucified,  dead  and 
buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us."  "  The  offering 
of  Christ  once  made  is  that  perfect  redemption,  propiti- 
ation and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world, 
both  original  and  actual."  The  Westminster  Confes- 
sion thus  expresses  it,  "  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect 
obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  hath  fully  satisfied 
the  justice  of  his  Father,  and  purchased  not  only  recon- 
ciliation, but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  for  all   those   whom   the  Father  hath  given 


THE  ATONEMENT.  99 

him."  Let  us  consider  what  is  contained  in  these  prop- 
ositions. 

In  the  first  place,  God  was  angry  with  men,  and  his 
anger  was  appeased  by  tlie  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ.  In  the  second  place,  that  he  suffered  the  full 
penalty  for  all  the  sins  of  all  mankind  ;  and  thirdly, 
that  he  has  purchased  not  only  reconciliation,  but  an 
everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  for 
those  whom  God  has  given  him.  As  a  counterpart  to 
this,  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us,  as  our  guilt  is 
to  him  ;  and  his  righteousness  is  the  ground  or  reason 
of  our  acceptance  with  God,  without  respect  to  what 
we  have  done,  either  good  or  evil. 

Now  we  say,  that  all  these  doctrines  are  essentially 
incredible,  and  we  mean  by  incredible  so  entirely  incon- 
sistent with  all  we  know  of  God,  either  from  his  works 
or  his  word,  that  we  feel  at  once  that  such  a  system  as 
this  cannot  make  a  part  of  his  government.  It  does 
not  agree  with  the  facts  of  the  case  as  stated  in  the 
Evangelical  narrative.  It  does  not  agree  with  the  gen- 
eral representations  of  the  Scriptures. 

In  the  first  place,  it  does  not  agree  with  the  facts  of 
the  case.  Jesus  came  among  the  Jews  in  the  character 
of  their  expected  Messiah.  He  assumed  the  character 
of  a  divinely  instructed  teacher.  He  undertook  to  set 
up  a  new  religion.  His  ministry  is  estimated  to  have 
continued  about  three  years,  most  of  which  time  he 
spent  in  instructing  the  multitudes  which  came  to  hear 
him.  He  chose  twelve  disciples,  whom  he  more  care- 
fully taught  the  principles  of  his  religion.  He  com- 
manded men  to  repent  and  reform,  and  promised  them 


100  THE  atonemp:nt. 

on  condition  they  did  so,  that  their  sins  should  be  blot- 
ted out  and  forgiven.  He  said  not  one  word  of  any 
impediment  on  the  part  of  God.  He  said  nothing  of 
any  act  of  his  own,  making  the  Deity  more  propitious 
to  men  than  he  otherwise  would  have  been.  He  add- 
ed moreover,  what  contradicts  one  part  of  this  hypoth- 
esis, "Bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance."  What 
is  his  whole  sermon  on  the  Mount,  but  one  exhortation 
to  practical  righteousness?  Now  how  utterly  superflu- 
ous this  was,  if  this  righteousness  was  to  be  of  no  ad- 
vantage to  them,  and  the  whole  ground  of  their  accept- 
ance with  God  was  to  be  his  own  righteousness  imputed 
to  them  ?  And  he  concludes  his  first  and  most  impor- 
tant discourse  with  these  remarkable  words,  "  Whoso- 
ever heareth  these  sayings  of  mine  and  doeth  them,  I 
will  liken  him  unto  a  wise  man  which  built  his  house 
upon  a  rock."  And  what  is  the  rock  which  he  builds 
upon  ?  The  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  ?  That 
is  passed  over  in  silence  the  most  profound.  The  fact, 
he  says,  that  he  has  done  these  commandments  of  Christ 
is  the  rock  which  storms  and  floods  cannot  wash  away. 
But  did  his  preaching  produce  general  repentance 
and  reformation  ?  It  did  not.  And  what  was  the  rea- 
son ?  Because  they  did  not  believe.  Here  then  we 
see  the  necessity  and  agency  of  faith  in  procuring  rec- 
onciliation or  atonement.  They  did  not  repent,  be- 
cause they  did  not  believe  that  he  brought  them  a  com- 
mand from  God  to  repent.  They  did  not  believe  him 
to  be  the  Messiah  as  he  claimed  to  be.  That  is,  they 
rejected  the  ambassador  whom  God  had  sent.  God 
was  endeavoring  through  Christ  to  reconcile  the  world 


■  THK    ATONKMENT.  101 

to  liiinself,  when  by  wicked  works  they  were  enemies 
to  him.  He  offered  them  forgiveness  simply  on  the 
terms  of  repentance  and  reformation.  All  that  was 
wanting  on  their  part  was  faith.  The  immediate  disci- 
ples became  convinced,  with  one  exception,  and  were 
reconciled  to  God. 

But  the  generality  of  the  nation  rejected  him  as  their 
Messiah,  and  began  to  look  upon  him  with  hatred,  and 
were  determined  to  rid  themselves  of  him  and  ruin  his 
cause  in  the  very  inception.  They  therefore  conspired 
together  by  false  charges  to  take  away  his  life.  He 
was  tried,  condemned  and  crucified  near  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem.  But  for  what  was  he  condemned  ?  For 
adhering  to  the  declaration  that  he  was  the  Messiah. 
He  was  called  before  the  council  of  the  nation  and  sol- 
emnly interrogated  by  the  high  priest.  '•'  I  adjure  thee 
by  the  living  God  that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou  be  the 
Christ?  And  Jesus  said,  I  am."  Had  he  shrunk  from 
that  question  and  its  consequences,  there  would  have 
been  an  end  of  his  religion  and  his  mission.  He  died 
then  a  martyr  to  that  one  declaration,  "  I  am  the  Christ," 
or  Messiah.  He  sealed  his  mission,  his  embassy  of  re- 
pentance and  reconciliation,  with  his  Hood.  We  have 
this  affecting  transaction  described  to  us  by  the  Evan- 
gelists in  the  most  vivid  and  moving  colors.  And  as 
we  see  him  led  forth  to  execution,  and  suspended  on 
the  cross,  is  there  anything  in  it  which  would  lead  us 
to  imagine  that  he,  who  hangs  upon  that  cross,  from 
the  sixth  hour  to  the  ninth,  bore  all  the  punishment 
which  was  due  to  all  the  sins  of  all  the  millions  of  the 
human  race  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  till  its 
9* 


102  THE   ATONEMENT. 

close  ?  Sucli  is  the  graphic  power  of  the  Evangelists 
that  you  cannot  but  place  yourself  in  that  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses to  the  crucifixion,  and  would  it  ever  enter  your 
mind,  that  that  barbarous  and  cruel  murder  could  be 
considered  in  the  light  of  an  acceptable  sacrifice  to  God  ? 
Could  those  wicked  hands  who  crucified  and  slew  the 
meek  and  sinless  Jesus,  be  offering  up  an  acceptable 
sacrifice  to  the  Father  of  infinite  compassion?  Could 
the  Deity  be  more  pleased  with  the  race  of  mankind, 
when  a  portion  of  them  had  cruelly  and  unjustly  put  to 
death  the  most  spotless  being  who  had  ever  appeared 
on  earth  ?  These  are  speculations  about  which  the  Apos- 
tles are  profoundly  silent,  and  are  added  to  the  scene 
by  the  imaginations  of  later  ages.  But  while  the 
Evangelical  narrative  is  entirely  silent  as  to  these 
supposed  effects  of  the  death  of  Christ,  it  does  state  ef- 
fects, which  have  been  of  unspeakable  moment  in  the 
great  office  of  the  Redeemer,  the  reconciliation  of  the 
world  to  God.  It  drew  upon  him  the  intense  and  breath- 
less gaze  of  that  generation  and  all  succeeding  times. 
God  did  not  need  to  be  reconciled  to  man, — to  be 
changed,  appeased  and  satisfied.  But  there  was  need 
that  sinful  man  should  be  changed,  and  brought  into 
such  a  state  as  that  the  spontaneous  mercy  of  God  might 
be  consistently  extended  to  him.  "  And  I,"  said  he, 
"  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  un- 
to me."  Myriads  of  hearts  have  been  touched  and 
melted  to  contrition,  and  thus  reconciled  to  God  by 
that  affecting  spectacle.  These  few  hours  of  suflTering 
then,  though  they  produced  no  effect  on  the  Deity  to 
make  him  more  ready  to  pardon  mankind,  for  "  God  is 


THt:   ATONEMENT.  J  03 

love,"  did  produce  on  mankind  an  immense,  inestima- 
ble effect.  The  death  of  Christ  was  the  mightiest  agen- 
cy ever  brought  to  bear  upon  the  human  mind.  "  God 
so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son^ 
that  whosoever  believelh  in  him  might  not  perish  but 
have  everlasting  life."  Lifted  up  upon  the  summit  of 
Calvary,  amid  the  multitudes  of  the  Jewish  nation  as- 
sembled to  keep  the  Passover,  "  a  spectacle  to  angels 
and  to  men,"  his  dying  and  convulsed  lips  which  had 
preached  so  much,  and  preached  so  much  in  vain,  ad- 
dressed the  world  in  more  moving  language  than  they 
had  ever  uttered  before,  "  Be  ye  reconciled  to  God." 
So  the  Jewish  malice,  instead  of  destroying  him  and 
crushing  his  cause,  fixed  upon  him  the  sympathies  and 
the  confidence  of  millions  of  hearts.  It  put  his  charac- 
ter to  the  highest  test,  and  by  the  manner  in  which  he 
went  through  it,  displayed  him  to  the  world  in  such  a 
character  of  superhuman  dignity,  devotedness  and  be- 
nevolence, as  to  make  an  irresistible  impression  upon 
the  human  mind  in  that  and  every  succeeding  age. 
Who  then  does  not  perceive,  that  this  tremendous  ex- 
hibition was  intended  to  produce  an  impression  on 
men  and  not  on  God  ?  There  was  no  need  of  an  im- 
pression upon  God  to  make  him  more  merciful,  for  the 
very  mission  of  Christ  originated  in  love.  "  God  so 
loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish  but 
have  everlasting  life."  Now  this  was  the  very  effect 
which  his  crucifixion  had,  to  draw  to  him  the  attention 
and  fix  on  him  the  belief  of  mankind,  to  lead  them  to 
accept  the  terms  of  repentance  and  reformation,  which 


104  THK   ATONEMENT. 

it  had  been  the  labor  of  his  minislry  to  offer  and  urge 
upon  them.  Thus  it  was  that  the  sufferings  and  death 
of  Christ  took  away  the  sins  of  men,  in  the  only  way  in 
which  they  can  be  removed,  by  producing  faith,  repent- 
ance and  reformation.  Thus  Christ  suffered  and  died  on 
account  of  the  sins  of  mankind,  because  men  were  sin- 
ners, and  to  take  away  their  sins,  but  did  not  suffer  their 
penalty.  Had  he  suffered  the  full  penalty  of  all  the  sins 
of  all  mankind,  then  they  must  in  justice  have  been  dis- 
charg-cd,  whether  they  repented  or  not,  and  all  the  suf- 
ferings inflicted  on  men  in  consequence  of  sin,  is  exact- 
ing the  penalty  twice,  a  proceeding  which  does  not 
very  well  agree  with  those  sentiments  of  justice  which 
God  has  implanted  within  us. 

Besides,- the  death  of  Christ  operated  in  another  way 
to  produce  faith,  repentance,  and  remission  of  sin.  The 
manner  of  his  death  was  public,  witnessed  by  multi- 
tudes. It  was  officially  procured  and  officially  ascer- 
tained. His  body  was  placed  under  a  guard  of  soldiers, 
and  watched  in  a  sepulchre  hewn  out  of  solid  rock. 
What  circumstances  could  have  been  devised  by  divine 
wisdom  to  render  the  miracle  of  his  resurrection  more 
striking  and  convincing  to  the  world  ?  Thus  it  was,' 
that  the  malice  of  the  Jews  prepared  the  way,  in  thcv 
most  effectual  manner,  for  God  to  place  the  grand  seal 
of  his  authority  on  the  mission  of  Christ,  by  raising  him 
from  the  dead,  in  spite  of  all  the  powers  of  earth  could 
do  ;  and  thus  he  "  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light" 
from  the  tomb,  which  since  the  creation  had  been  a 
land  of  shadows,  doubts  and  darkness.  When,  there- 
fore, the  angel  came   to  roll  away  the  stone  from  the 


THE   ATONEMENT.  105 

the  door  of  the  sepulchre,  and  thus  open  to  man,  to  all 
future  ages,  un  undying  hope  out  of  the  very  caverns 
of  the  grave,  he  found  the  way  prepared,  by  all  the  at- 
tending circumstances  of  his  death  and  burial,  to  spread 
the  tidings  far  and  wide,  and  call  the  nations  from  the 
death  of  sin  to  a  life  of  holiness.  Thus  the  malicious 
murder  of  Christ  by  the  wise  arrangement  of  Divine 
Providence,  was  made  the  most  direct  and  efficacious 
means  of  promoting  his  cause,  of  reconciling  the  world 
to  himself  through  Jesus  Christ.  These  events  did  pro- 
duce a  sensation  in  the  world  which  never  was  experi- 
enced before  nor  since,  and  which  manifests  itself  in 
every  page  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  accession 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  those  miraculous  powers  which 
were  bestowed  upon  the  apostles,  completed  the  evi- 
dence, and  then  men  began  to  believe  in  great  numbers, 
repented,  reformed,  "  that  they  might  not  perish  but 
have  everlasting  life."  Thus,  according  to  our  text, 
God  was  in  or  through  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  to 
himself,  not  imputing  to  them  their  trespasses,  and  thus 
was  committed  to  the  apostles  the  ministry  of  reconcil- 
iation ;  and  they  went  every  where,  beseeching  men  in 
Christ's  stead  "  be  ye  reconciled  to  God."  And  what 
was  in  fact  their  preaching?  Hear  Peter  in  one  of  his 
first  discourses  after  the  ascension.  "  Repent  and  be 
converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out.  Unto 
you  first  God  having  raised  up  his  son  Jesus,  sent  him 
to  bless  you" — how — not  by  pacifying  the  wrath  of  God, 
or  suffering  the  penalty  of  sin,  but  "  by  turning  away 
every  one  from  his  iniquities."  What  is  the  only  con- 
dition  upon   w'hich   their  sins  should  be  blotted  out? 


106  TIIK   ATONEMENT. 

"  Ropent  and  be  converted,"  or  turned  from  your 
sins. 

Such  appears  to  us  to  be  the  plain,  historic  statement 
of  the  ministry,  the  sufferings,  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus.  These  seem  to  us  to  be  the  real  effects, 
which  his  death  and  the  circumstances  attending  it,  ac- 
tually had  in  the  world  and  uf>on  mankind.  And  we 
can  have  no  doubt  that  these  things  were  so  arranged 
by  infinite  wisdom,  in  order  to  produce  these  effects. 
His  death  was  a  part  of  the  great  scheme  of  his  mission 
to  reconcile  man  to  God.  As  it  is  simply  and  beauti- 
fully expressed  by  Paul.  "  Our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ, 
who  gave  hi.mself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from 
all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people, 
jealous  of  good  works.  This  agrees,  as  we  conceive, 
with  our  views  of  the  atonement ;  that  it  consists  in 
reconciling  man  to  God,  and  not  in  reconciling  God  to 
man  ;  not  in  suffering  the  punishment  due  to  men's  sins, 
but  in  turning  them  away  from  their  sins,  and  making 
them  proper  subjects  of  the  mercy  of  God  ;  not  in  pur- 
chasing God's  mercy,  for  that  was  infinite,  free,  and 
boundless  before,  or  removing  any  impediment  in  him 
to  its  exercise,  but  in  removing  the  only  impediment, 
the  impenitence  of  man. 

Now  let  us  consider  the  opposite  doctrine. — "  Christ," 
say  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  "  very  God 
and  very  man ;  who  truly  suffered,  was  crucified,  dead 
and  buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us.  "  The  offer- 
ing of  Christ  once  made,  is  that  perfect  redemption, 
propitiation  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whoK 
world,  both   original  and   actual."     The  Westminster 


THE   ATONEMENT.  107 

Confession  says,  "  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  by  his  perfect 
obedience,  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  hath  fully  satisfied 
the  justice  of  his  Father,  and  purchased,  not  only  rec- 
onciliation, but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in  heaven  for 
all  those  whom  the  Father  hath  given  him." 

It  is  argued  in  support  of  this  doctrine  of  atonement, 
that  God  is  infinitely  just,  and  his  infinite  justice  requires 
a  full  penalty  of  every  sin  before  it  is  forgiven.  We 
answer  then,  if  the  debt  is  fully  paid  by  another,  it  is 
not  forgiven,  so  far  as  God  is  concerned.  It  is  dis- 
charged. There  is  no  forgiveness  at  all.  If  God  has 
never  forgiven  a  sin  without  exacting  the  full  penalty, 
then  he  has  never  exercised  an  act  of  mercy  in  his  ad- 
ministration of  the  universe.  Can  an  usurer  ever  be 
said  to  forgive  a  debt,  when  he  always  compels  either 
the  debtor,  or  some  one  else  to  pay  the  whole  sum  ? 

We  reply  moreover,  that  we  know  God  is  merciful, 
for  he  has  declared  it  in  his  holy  word  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world.  Hear  his  declaration  to  Moses. 
"  The  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long 
suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  keep- 
ing mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  transgres- 
sion and  sin."  Shall  not  we  believe  God's  declaration 
concerning  himself?  Shall  we  believe  that  his  mercy 
endureth  forever,  or  shall  we  believe  that  this  was  ut- 
tered with  some  mental  reservation,  that  he  is  merciful 
only  when  his  mercy  is  purchased  with  a  full  equivalent 
of  suffering?  Mercy  in  its  very  nature  is  a  relaxation 
of  strict  justice,  is  a  remission  of  its  exact  awards.  He 
who  says  God  is  just,  in  that  sense  of  tenaciously  exact- 
ing all,  denies  his  mercy,  a  still  more  precious  attribute 


108  THE   ATONEMENT. 

of  the  Divine  perfections.  Besides,  fie  denies  the  Scrip- 
tures, for  they  uniformly  assert  that  God  is  nnerciful. 
But  it  is  no  imputation  on  his  justice  to  say  that  he  is 
merciful.  Injustice  is  punishing  the  innocent,  or  pun- 
ishing the  guilty  more  than  they  deserve,  or  withhold- 
ing a  proper  or  a  promised  reward  from  the  righteous 
or  the  meritorious.  It  would  be  unjust  to  exact  the  full 
amount  of  the  penalty  from  the  surety,  and  then  cast 
the  debtor  into  prison  till  he  should  pay  over  the  whole 
amount  himself.  It  would  be  unjust  to  exact,  accord- 
ing to  the  creed,  "a  full  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of 
all  mankind"  from  Christ,  and  then  exact  it  again  from 
them,  by  all  the  pains  inflicted  on  sin  in  this  world,  and 
the  world  to  come. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  urged  that  an  infinite  sacri- 
fice was  necessary  for  the  honor  of  God's  law  ;  that 
forgiveness  without  a  substitute  would  weaken  its  au- 
thority. But  men  must  be  careful  that  in  honoring 
God's  law,  they  do  not  dishonor  him.  To  make  this 
supposition,  is  to  suppose  that  man  was  made  for  the 
law,  and  not  the  law  made  for  man.  This  would  sup- 
pose that  the  Divine  government  was  like  weak  human 
governments,  esiablislied  merely  to  keep  people  in  or- 
der, and  not  to  consult  tiieir  everlasting  happiness. 
The  honor  of  such  a  government  would  be  like  the  laws 
of  Draco,  written  in  blood,  decreeing  one  and  the  same 
punishment,  death,  to  the  smallest  and  greatest  offences. 
A  government  without  mercy  is  what  is  called  on  earth, 
the  government  of  a  tyrant.  Such  an  administration 
as  that,  while  it  honored  the  law  would  dishonor  God. 
The  government  of  God  is  strictly  parental.     Oh  !  how 


THE  ATONEMENT.  109 

different  it  is  from  that.stern,  fierce  and  inexorable  one, 
which  this  supposition  would  make  it !  "  Like  as  a 
father  pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord  pilieth  them  that 
fear  him,  for  he  knoweth  our  frame,  and  rememberelh 
that  we  are  dust."  Oh  !  how  different  would  such  a 
God  be  from  that  Heavenly  Father  we  have  shown  us 
by  Christ  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  !  There 
our  Heavenly  Father,  under  the  character  of  the  pa- 
rent of  the  returning  profligate,  sees  the  sinner,  while 
he  is  yet  a  great  way  off,  and  he  "  had  compassion," 
spontaneous,  not  purchased,  "and  ran,  and  fell  on  his 
neck,  and  kissed  him."  This  was  intended  by  Christ 
to  shadow  forth  the  Divine  conduct  towards  sinners. 
But  according  to  the  hypothesis  we  are  opposing,  it  is 
not  according  to  the  truth.  To  have  been  true  to  the 
fact,  he  should  have  made  the  father,  before  he  would 
pardon  and  receive  his  son,  have  insisted  that  the  other 
brother  should  first  undergo  all  the  punishment  which 
the  prodigal  had  deserved.  On  the  contrary,  you  per- 
ceive, that  he  asks  nothing  more  than  true  penitence 
and  sincere  reformation. 

Li  the  next  place,  this  dogma  of  an  infinite  satisfac- 
tion is  supported  by  the  following  argument.  Every 
sin  is  an  infinite  evil,  because  it  is  committed  against 
an  infinite  Being.  It  therefore,  requires  an  infinite  sat- 
isfaction. Christ  was  the  only  Person,  who  could  make 
this  satisfaction,  because  he  is  God  and  man  in  one 
Person.  But  this  argument  is  lame  in  two  respects. 
In  the  first  place,  if  every  sin  of  a  finite  Being  is  infi- 
nite because  commited  against  an  infinite  Being ;  on 
just  as  sound  reason  is  the  atonement  infinite,  because 
10 


110  THE   ATONKMENT. 

it  is  made  to  an  infinite  Being.  If  the  act  derive  an 
infinite  nature  from  the  Being  to  whom  it  is  done,  in- 
stead of  a  finite  nature  from  the  agent,  then  the  satis- 
faction will  be  infinite  from  the  nature  of  the  Being  to 
whom  it  is  rendered,  though  the  agent  who  renders  it 
be  finite. 

The  other  point  in  which  this  argument  fails,  is  this. 
Christ  made  an  infinite  satisfaction  by  his  suflferings  and 
death,  because  he  was  an  infinite  Being,  both  God  and 
man.  But  if  you  ask  the  advocates  of  this  dogma,  if 
they  believe  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  suffered 
and  died,  they  answer,  "  No  :  it  would  be  blasphemous 
to  suppose  so."  Then  it  follows  that  nothing  but  the 
man  suffered.  What  then  becomes  of  the  infinite  sat- 
isfaction ?  It  goes  out  in  mere  words.  It  is  asserted 
in  form,  and  denied  in  fact.  The  Divine  Person  must 
have  been  withdrawn  all  that  time  to  the  ruin  of  this 
argument,  and  the  contradiction  of  creeds  and  articles 
of  faith  which  assert  that  the  two  natures  were  joined 
in  one  Person  never  to  be  divided.  Besides  the  Sec- 
ond Person,  being  equal  in  every  respect  in  the  God- 
head with  the  first,  the  sins  of  mankind  doubtless  being 
committed  against  the  whole  Deity,  were  as  much 
against  him  as  the  Father,  and  if  the  Father  were  angry 
and  required  satisfaction,  the  Second  Person  must  be 
so  too,  and  likewise  require  satisfaction.  But  he  could 
not  make  satisfaction  to  himself,  though  he  might  to 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  follows  then  irre- 
sistibly that  the  Second  Person  never  has  been,  and 
never  can  be  satisfied.  Such  amazing  inconsistencies 
men  are  led  into  by  falling  into  the  fundamental  error, 


THE  ATONEMENT.  1  11 

that  the  atonement  is  the  reconcihation  of  God  to  man, 
instead  of  man  to  God. 

But  it  is  said,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  intended  ' 
to  make  a  display  to  the  universe  of  the  infinite  evil  of 
sin,  and  the  wrath  of  God  against  it.  It  would  have 
been  making  light  of  it,  to  have  pardoned  it  on  any 
other  ground  without  making  this  exhibition.  In  an- 
swer to  this  I  would  say,  that  I  can  conceive  of  no 
possible  way  in  which  the  evil  of  sin  could  be  made  to 
appear  so  light.  The  evil  of  sin  is  the  happiness  it 
prevents  or  destroys  among  mankind,  the  degradation 
and  misery  to  which  it  subjects  the  sinner.  These  are 
its  natural  eflfects  according  to  the  laws  of  nature  and 
God.  Its  appropriate  punishment  is  remorse  of  con- 
science, and  outward  inconvenience  and  suffering.  Its 
only  cure,  true  penitence  and  thorough  reformation. 
One  of  its  evils  and  punishments  is  the  slow,  painful, 
and  difficult  process,  the  disagreeable  and  nauseous 
remedies  to  which  we  must  submit,  in  order  to  be  cured 
of  this  loathsome  disease  that  we  have  brought  upon 
ourselves.  This,  to  my  mind,  displays  the  evil  of  sin 
more  impressively  than  anything  else  could  do.  And 
I  will  add,  I  know  of  no  way  in  which  this  wide-spread- 
ing evil  of  sin  could  be  so  diminished,  I  had  almost 
said  annihilated  in  my  view  as  to  suppose  that  all  this 
mighty  connection  between  cause  and  effect,  of  sin  and 
suffering  could  be  arrested  and  broken  off,  and  all  the 
merited  sufferings  of  the  myriads  of  the  human  race  be 
concentrated  and  expiated  by  the  sufferings  of  a  few 
hours,  by  the  agonies  of  one  death.  Sin  is  not  so  great 
an  evil  if  all  its  ill  consequences  can  be  so  easily  got 


112  THE   ATONEMLNT. 

rid  of.  I  might  have  said,  according  to  the  tlieory  we 
are  opposing,  the  agonies  and  death  of  one  human  be- 
ing, for  it  is  not  pretended,  or  rather  it  is  strenuously 
denied,  that  the  Divine  Nature,  the  Second  Person  of 
the  Trinity  suffered.  He  must  have  been,  if  he  were 
God  equal  to  the  Father,  at  that  very  moment  filHng  all 
space  in  a  state  of  infinite  happiness  and  bliss.  All 
connection  of  Jesus  with  him  then,  if  there  were  any 
sympathy  between  them,  must  have  mitigated  the  suf- 
ferings of  Jesus,  instead  of  making  them  infinite.  Be- 
sides, there  were  some  circumstances  in  the  death  of 
Christ,  though  an  exceeding  painful  and  excruciating 
one,  of  alleviation,  of  comfort  and  support.  "  It  was 
for  the  joy  set  before  him  that  he  endured  the  cross,  des- 
spising  the  shame."  Was  there  no  consolation  in  the 
anticipation  of  this  joy  ?  He  was  not  descending  to  a 
dark,  a  doubtful,  or  a  fearful  tomb.  He  knew  that  in 
three  days,  he  should  rise  in  glory,  and  ascend  to  that 
eternal  joy  which  was  set  before  him.  His  sufferings 
were  not  infinite  in  duration,  nor  could  they  have  been 
in  degree,  because  there  was  much  to  console  him  un- 
der them.  To  suppose  then  that  these  sufferings  were 
equivalent  to,  and  sufficient  to  cancel  and  do  away,  all 
the  black  crimes  of  all  mankind  in  all  ages,  is  to  my 
mind  to  make  light  of  sin,  rather  than  impress  the  uni- 
verse with  its  infinite  evil  and  ill-desert.  How  much 
more  impressive  to  witness  in  its  endless  manifestations, 
the  inexorable  law  by  which  suffering  is  chained  to  sin 
in  the  sinner's  own  person,  not  to  be  broken,  but  by 
true  contrition  and  real  reformation. 

Moreover,  this  whole  hypothesis  of  satisfaction  and 


I 


THE    ATONEMENT.  113 

substitution  is  founded  on  an  entire  misapprehension  of 
the  nature  of  sin  and  guilt,  responsibility  and  punish- 
ment. It  supposes  things,  which  are  impossible  in 
their  own  nature.  It  supposes  sin,  guilt,  punishment, 
innocence  and  righteousness  to  be  transferable;  that 
men's  sins,  guilt,  and  punishment  were  transferred  to 
Christ,  and  his  innocence  and  righteousness  transferred 
to  them.  Sin  is  a  personal  act,  and  cannot  be  trans- 
ferred, any  more  than  personal  identity  can  be  trans- 
ferred. It  cannot  by  any  possibility  become  the  act  of 
one,  who  never  participated  in  it.  Until  one  man  can 
become  another,  he  never  can  be  guilty  of  his  sins. 
That  it  cannot  be  transferred,  is  made  certain  by  the 
very  nature  of  conscience.  That  another  suffers  for 
my  sin  cannot  relieve  my  conscience.  It  is  rather  ag- 
gravated than  relieved  by  the  fact.  The  only  thing 
that  can  relieve  me,  is  to  suffer  the  penalty  myself,  or 
sincere  repentance  and  reformation.  Punishment  is 
any  kind  of  penalty,  pain,  or  suffering  inflicted  on  a 
Irangressor.  Punishment  can  take  place  only  when 
there  is  a  consciousness  of  guilt.  If  inflicted  where 
there  is  no  consciousness  of  guilt,  it  is  not  punishment. 
It  is  injury,  or  injustice.  Vicarious  punishment  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  One  man  can  suffer  in  conse- 
quence of  another's  sin.  But  this  does  not  take  it 
away  ;  it  rather  aggravates  it.  One  man  may  suffer 
for  another  that  is  a  sinner,  in  order  to  reform  and  save 
him.  One  brother  may  undergo  much  for  another 
brother  in  order  to  bring  him  to  repentance,  reforma- 
tion, and  reconciliation  to  their  common  father.  But 
unless  he  brings  him  to  repentance  and  reformation,  it 
10* 


114  THE  ATONEMENT. 

is  all  in  vain.  He  cannot  suffer  in  his  stead,  nor  do 
anything  to  expiate  his  guilt.  Unless  the  guilty  man 
repents  and  reforms,  his  conscience  is  not  cleansed. 
He  must  suffer.     He  cannot  enjoy  peace  or  comfort. 

Here  then  we  come  back  to  the  ground  from  which 
we  started.  The  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  are 
availing  to  take  away  the  sins  of  men,  only  so  far  as 
they  lead  men  to  repentance  and  reformation.  To  this 
agrees  this  declaration  of  the  apostle  Peter :  "  Foras- 
much as  ye  know  that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  cor- 
ruptible things,  as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  con- 
versation received  by  tradition  from  your  fathers,  but 
with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without 
blemish  and  without  spot."  What  can  being  redeem- 
ed by  the  blood  of  Christ  from  their  vain  conversation, 
mean  but  being  brouglU  to  repentance  and  reformation  ? 
There  is  no  other  deliverance  from  sin  but  by  repent- 
ance and  reformation.  And  we  go  further,  and  say, 
that  without  repentance  and  reformation,  forgiveness 
can  do  little  or  no  good.  And  here  again  we  affirm 
that  the  theory  of  the  atonement  being  the  reconcilia- 
tion of  God  to  man,  instead  of  man  to  God,  utterly 
mistakes  the  nature  of  things. 

Suppose  a  good  father  has  a  profligate  son.  He  be- 
comes alienated  from  his  father,  and  wanders  from  his 
house.  Some  kind  friend  brings  him  home  and  tries 
to  make  a  reconciliation  or  atonement  between  them. 
The  father,  in  his  great  tenderness,  forgives  all  that  the 
son  has  done  amiss.  But  the  son  is  not  sorry  for  what 
he  has  done.  He  has  not  reformed,  but  is  as  bad  as 
ever.     He  is  the  same  miserable,  degraded,  dissolute 


THE   ATONEMKNT.  115 

being  as  before.  He  is  just  as  unhappy,  and  just  as 
much  the  cause  of  unhappiness  to  his  father.  Of  what 
use  then  is  it  to  reconcile  the  father  to  him  ?  Of  no 
use  whatever.  The  son  must  be  reconciled  to  the  fa- 
ther by  repentance  and  reformation  in  order  to  have 
their  reconcihation  of  any  avail.  The  father  was  al- 
ways ready  to  be  reconciled  whenever  he  saw  a  true 
and  real  amendment  in  the  son.  The  mutual  friend, 
in  order  to  have  his  interposition  of  any  aivail,  must 
persuade  the  son  to  reform  ;  then  he  will  be  in  deed 
and  in  truth  the  minister  of  reconciliation.  Here  then 
we  see  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  that  Christ  did 
not  die  to  reconcile  God  to  men,  but  to  reconcile  men 
to  God,  and  his  interposition  is  available  only  so  far 
and  to  so  many  as  he  brings  to  repentance. 

But  it  is  said,  God  could  not  and  would  not  pardon 
men,  even  when  they  had  repented  and  reformed,  with- 
out inflicting  their  proper  penalty  and  punishment,  on 
a  substitute,  or  a  third  person.  We  answer,  that  this 
is  a  mere  assertion  without  a  shadow  of  proof.  He 
who  says  that,  might  as  well  make  any  other  assertion 
whatever.  It  is  a  libel  on  the  character  of  God.  What 
human  parent  was  ever  so  inexorable  and  hardhearted 
as  never  to  forgive  one  of  his  children  when  he  asked 
his  pardon  with  penitence  and  tears,  until  he  had  in- 
flicted the  full  punishment  on  another  of  his  children  ? 

Besides,  it  is  expressly  contradicted  by  innumerable 
declarations  of  Scripture.  "  When  he  was  a  great  way 
off",  his  Father  saw  him,  and  had  compassion  and  ran 
and  fell  on  his  neck  and  kissed  him."  "  And  when 
they  had  nothing  to  pay,  he  frankly  forgave  them  both." 


116  THE   ATONEMENT. 

"  If  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your  heavenly 
Father  will  forgive  you."  "  If  thy  brother  sin  against 
thee,  and  turn  again  and  say,  I  repent,  thou  shalt  for- 
give him."  "  How  often,"  asks  one  of  his  disciples, 
"  until  seven  times  ?"  He  answers,  "  Until  seventy 
times  seven."  And  shall  God,  who  commands  us  to 
imitate  him  in  his  clemency  and  kindness,  command 
us  to  forgive  our  brother  until  seventy  times  seven,  on 
mere  repentance  and  asking  forgiveness,  and  shall  he 
not  forgive  us  once  ?  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his 
way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him 
return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon 
him,  and  unto  our  God  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon." 
"Thou  art  a  God,"  said  Nehemiah,  "ready  to  pardon, 
gracious  and  merciful,  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great  kind- 
ness." Are  these  the  representations  of  a  Being  whose 
mercy  must  be  purchased  by  the  sufferings  of  an  inno- 
cent person,  or  of  one  whose  nature  is  all  love  and  be- 
nevolence ?  And  as  to  how  far  sacrifices  propitiate  his 
favor,  hear  the  Psalmist.  "  For  thou  desirest  not  sac- 
rifice, else  would  I  give  it.  The  sacrifices  of  God  are 
a  broken  spirit,  a  broken  and  contrite  heart  thou  wilt 
not  despise."  Do  not  say  then,  that  the  mercy  of  such 
a  Being  must  be  purchased  by  what  my  soul  abhors  to 
name,  a  human  sacrifice. 

But  it  may  be  urged,  that  Christ  is  said  to  have  given 
himself  a  ransom  for  sinners.  We  believe  it  in  the  only 
sense  which  the  assertion  will  bear.  A  literal  ransom 
is  given  by  one  person  to  another  for  something  re- 
ceived. In  a  literal  ransom,  things  change  owners. 
But  here  there  is  no  such  transaction,  no  such  parties. 


THE   ATONEMENT.  117 

Christ  was  not  given  up  to,  and  retained  by  any  being 
or  party  in  whose  hands  sinners  were,  and  who  then 
gave  them  up.  It  was  not  then  a  literal  ransom.  He 
was  a  ransom  in  the  figurative  sense  of  a  deliverance, 
by  laying  down  his  life  to  redeem  men  from  all  iniquity. 
So  God  in  Scripture  is  said  to  have  ransomed  the  Is- 
raelites from  Egypt,  meaning  not  that  he  paid  a  price 
for  them,  but  merely  delivered  them.  So  when  he 
brought  them  back  from  the  Babylonish  captivity,  Jere- 
miah declares,  that  "  the  Lord  has  redeemed  Jacob  and 
ransomed  Israel." 

The  same  observations  are  applicable  to  the  phrase, 
"  ye  are  bought  with  a  price."  There  was  no  being 
whose  property  they  were  who  could  receive  the  price. 
The  meaning  is  evidently  the  same  as  when  it  is  else- 
where said  that  Christians  "  were  redeemed  from  their 
vain  conversation  by  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,"  that 
is,  his  death  was  a  means  of  bringing  them  to  repent- 
ance. 

I  h^e  now  finished  the  discussion,  and  I  leave  it  with 
the  candid  judgments  of  all  who  hear  me  to  say,  which 
of  these  views  of  the  atonement  is  most  agreeable  to 
the  nature  of  things,  the  eternal  laws  of  personal  re- 
sponsibility, and  the  representations  of  the  Scriptures, 
that  which  makes  it  to  consist  in  reconciling  God  to 
men,  in  purcliasing  his  favor,  or  that  which  makes  it  to 
consist  in  reconciling  man  to  God  by  bringing  him  to 
repentance  and  reformation,  and  thus  making  him  a  fit 
subject  for  the  divine  clemency.  As  to  the  doctrine  of 
imputed  righteousness,  and  the  common  form  of  pray- 
ing jlo  be  accepted  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  I  mere- 


118  THE   ATONEMENT. 

ly  ask  you  to  examine  your  Bibles,  and  see  if  there  be 
such  a  prayer  or  such  a  sentiment  in  them.  And  when 
you  are  satisfied  that  it  is  a  human  invention,  I  would 
have  you  turn  to  what  is  there.  "  He  that  hath  done 
good  shall  rise  to  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  he  that 
hath  done  evil,  to  the  resurrection*  of  condemnation." 
I  have  merely  to  add,  that  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
or  reconciliation,  is  a  practical  doctrine,  and  one  of  im- 
mense importance  to  every  one  who  hears  me  this 
night.  It  is  not  so  much  a  matter  of  speculation  as  it 
is  of  feeling,  of  individual  experience.  You  all  know, 
every  man  may  know,  whether  he  is  reconciled  to  God 
or  not,  whether  he  has  sincerely  repented  and  reformed, 
whether  he  has  peace  with  God  and  a  conscience 
cleansed  by  true  contrition,  whether  he  is  living  a  life 
of  obedience  or  of  recklessness  and  sin.  If  he  is  living 
a  penitent,  obedient  life,  he  is  in  a  slate  of  atonement, 
he  is  at  one  with  God.  But  if  not,  be  assured  there  is 
no  speculation,  there  is  no  imputed  righteousness  that 
will  save  you  or  give  you  rest.  We  then,  as  the  am- 
bassadors for  Christ,  as  though  God  did  through  us  be- 
seech you,  we  entreat  you,  be  ye  reconciled  to  God. 


LECTURE   V 


ORIGINAL  SIN. 


EZEKIEL,  XVIII.  20. 

"  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.  the  son  shall  not  bear 
the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear 

THE  INIQUITY  OF  THE  son:  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  THE  RIGHT- 
EOUS SHALL  BE  UPON  HOI,  AND  THE  WICKEDNESS  OF  THE  WICKED 
SHALL  BE  UPON  HIM. 

"  Okiginal  sin,"  say  the  articles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  "  is  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of 
every  man  that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  offspring 
of  Adam,  whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness,  and  is  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil, 
so  that  the  flesh  always  lusted  contrary  to  the  spirit, 
and,  therefore,  in  every  person  born  into  the  world,  it 
deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation." 

It  is  expressed  more  strongly  and  broadly  in  the 
Westminster  Catechism,  "  The  covenant  being  made 
with  Adam,  not  only  for  himself  but  for  his  posterity, 
all  mankind,  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  genera- 
tion, sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  trans- 
gression. The  sinfulness  of  that  state,  whereinto  man 
fell,  consists,  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want 
of  original   righteousness,  and   the  corruption   of  his 


120  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin, 
together  with  all  actual  transgressions  which  proceed 
from  it.  All  mankind  by  their  fall,  lost  communion 
with  God,  are  under  his  wrath  and  curse,  and  so  made 
liable  to  all  the  miseries  of  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and 
the  pains  of  hell  forever." 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  of  this  doctrine,  that  it 
shrouds  the  universe  in  gloom.  It  represents  the  myr- 
iads of  the  human  race  to  be  created  at  the  very  com- 
mencement of  their  existence,  heirs  of  hell,  and  the  tor- 
ments of  the  damned.  And  as  a  full  half  of  the  human 
race  die  in  infancy  and  childhood,  this  world  is  a  mere 
nursery  for  the  regions  of  woe,  where  the  young  plants 
of  immortal  existence  spring  up  only  to  be  removed  to 
the  dreary  plains  of  endless  sorrow  ;  earth  is  only  the 
vestibule,  the  entrance  to  the  chambers  of  eternal  death. 
The  whole  race  of  mankind  are  born  under  God's  wrath 
and  curse,  grow  worse  and  worse  while  they  live,  and 
finally  sink  down,  with  few  exceptions,  to  inconceivable 
and  eternal  sufferings ;  and  all  this,  not  for  what  they 
have  done,  for  any  guilt  or  fault  of  their  own,  but  in 
punishment  of  a  sin,  in  which  they  did  not  participate, 
and  of  which  they  are  entirely  innocent,  committed 
ages  ago  by  a  remote  ancestor.  He,  who  can  look  in 
the  face  of  an  infant  in  all  its  loveliness,  and  helpless- 
ness, and  feel  his  heart  yearn  at  the  slightest  accident 
which  gives  it  pain,  and  believe  this,  must  attribute  to 
his  Maker  a  character  of  infinite  atrocity  instead  of  mer- 
cy. Should  you  see  a  human  parent  torturing  his  chil- 
dren to  death  as  soon  ns  they  were  born,  could  you 
ever  look  on  him  with  any  other  feeling  than  that  of  hor- 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  121 

ror  and  detestation  ?  So  it  seems  to  me,  that  any  man 
who  believes  that  God  sends  to  eternal  torments,  myri- 
ads of  the  infants  that  are  born  into  the  world,  can  nev- 
er worship  him  from  any  other  motive  than  the  most 
abject  and  degrading  fear. 

In  the  first  place  we  remark,  that  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  is  incredible,  because  it  involves  the  highest 
injustice  on  the  part  of  God.  If  it  be  true,  then  there 
is  an  end  of  all  religion.  Religious  affections  towards 
God  are  founded  on  a  belief  of  his  moral  perfection. 
The  evidence  of  his  moral  perfection  is  found  in  what 
he  does.  And  if  he  has  done  that  which  clearly  con- 
tradicts all  our  ideas  of  justice,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
regard  him  as  just,  or  to  worship  and  love  him  as  such. 

That  the  condemnation  of  mankind  to  endless  misery 
on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  would  be  unjust,  is  a  propo- 
sition so  plain,  that  it  only  requires  to  be  stated  to 
strike  the  intuitive  sense  of  justice,  which  God  has  im- 
planted in  every  bosom.  It  is  so  plain  that  no  reason- 
ing can  make  it  plainer.  It  only  admits  of  illustration 
by  parallel  cases. 

Suppose  a  law  should  be  enacted,  whereby  it  was 
decreed,  that  not  only  every  thief  should  be  imprisoned 
for  life,  but  his  children  as  soon  as  they  were  born,  to 
the  remotest  generation,  should  be  imprisoned  likewise  ; 
would  not  such  a  law  be  considered  unjust  ?  But  how 
infinitely  less  unjust  than  the  condemnation  of  children 
for  the  sin  of  a  remote  ancestor,  to  interminable  tor- 
ments ?  Suppose  it  should  be  decreed  that  every  mur- 
derer should  not  only  be  hung  himself,  but  that  all  his 
descendants  to  the  end  of  time  should  have  their  eyes 
11 


122  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

put  out  as  soon  as  they  were  bom  ?  Could  such  a  faw 
as  that  be  tolerated  for  a  moment  ?  Would  not  a  le- 
gislature which  could  enact  such  a  law  be  thought  wor- 
thy of  the  eternal  execration  of  mankind  ?  And  yet 
the  injustice  of  such  a  law  would  be  trifling,  compared 
with  that  of  dooming  them  to  everlasting  woe,  instead 
of  depriving  them  of  one  of  their  senses.  It  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind,  likewise,  that  the  effect  of  Adam's  sin 
is  two-fold.  Its  guilt  is  not  only  immediately  imputed 
to  his  posterity,  so  that  they  are  born  under  God's 
wrath  and  curse,  but  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupt- 
ed nature  is  conveyed  to  his  posterity,  "  whereby  we 
are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to 
all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil." 

After  this,  when  men  are  "  disabled"  to  all  good, 
and  made  incapable  of  doing  anything  good,  then  a  law 
is  proposed  to  them,  not  one  article  of  which  they  can 
keep  or  perform,  any  more  than  the  blind  can  see,  or 
the  lame  can  walk,  and  God  punishes  them  for  disobe- 
dience by  all  the  pains  that  are  consequent  on  sin  in 
this  world,  and  in  the  world  to  come.  Such  a  compli- 
cation of  injustice  as  this  far  transcends  all  human  con- 
ception ;  it  exceeds  all  the  injustice,  which  has  been 
committed  in  all  the  tyrannies  that  have  existed  since 
the  commencement  of  time.  We  say,  therefore,  that 
there  must  be  some  mistake  here,  some  grand  defect, 
either  in  the  premises,  or  the  reasonings  by  which  such 
a  doctrine  is  deduced  from  them. 

I  cannot  doubt,  that  many  pious  and  good  men  have 
thought  themselves  compelled  by  sufficient  evidence  to 
receive  this  doctrine  as  true,  and  doubtless,  have  con- 


ORIGINAL  SIN,  123 

sidered  it  useful,  to  break  down  and  subdue  the  stub- 
born heart  of  sinful  man.  But  I  say,  at  the  same  time, 
that  I  know  no  doctrine,  which  to  me  seems  more  cal- 
culated to  vitiate  and  destroy  all  true  piety  to  God  and 
charity  to  man — to  corrupt  the  moral  sense  and  harden 
the  heart, 

I  will  only  add  to  this  part  of  the  subject  the  candid 
confession  of  one  of  the  most  learned  of  Orthodox  com- 
mentators on  the  New  Testament  who  are  now  alive, 
Professor  Stuart  of  Andover.  "  Those,"  says  he,  "  who 
hold  this  theory  usually  maintain,  that  our  depravity  is 
not  only  connate,  that  is,  born  with  us,  but  in  us,  innate, 
and  that  being  such,  it  is  also  the  punishment  of  Adam's 
sin  which  is  imputed  to  us.  There  are  some  very  for- 
midable difficulties  in  the  way  of  this.  For  the  sin  in 
t]iis  case  of  Adam's  posterity,  that  is,  their  original  sin, 
is  by  the  very  ground  of  the  theory,  merely  imputed, 
not  real  and  actual.  But  what  is  the  punishment,  ac- 
tual to  be  sure,  according  to  the  statement  of  those,  who 
advocate  this  theory,  and  actual  indeed  in  a  tremen- 
dous degree.  The  punishment  begins  with  our  being,  it 
is  born  in  us.  and  with  us,  and  contains  within  itself 
not  only  the  commencement  of  a  misery,  which  is  nat- 
urally without  end,  but  is  -at  the  same  time  the  root 
and  ground  of  all  other  sins,  which  we  commit,  and 
which  serve  unspeakably  to  augment  our  condemnation 
and  misery.  Now  can  the  human  mind  well  conceive, 
that  perfect  justice  would  punish  with  actual  and  ever- 
lasting and  inevitable  corruption,  and  ruin,  and  misery, 
beings  who  are  sinners  only  by  imputation,  i.  e.  by  mere 
sup])osition,  and  not  in  fact?     For  myself,"  ho  contin- 


124  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

»es,  "  I  can  only  say  that  all  the  elements  of  my  moral 
nature  set  themselves  in  array  against  such  a  represen- 
tation as  this.  It  is  one  of  those  cases  which  make  it 
necessary  for  me  to  be  made  over  again,  and  have  new 
and  different  faculties,  before  I  can  admit  its  truth." 
To  this  we  most  heartily  say.  Amen.  He  goes  on  to 
add,  "  can  it  be  brought  in  any  tolerable  measure  to  ac- 
cord with  the  views  which  the  Bible  gives  of  divine  jus- 
tice ?  How  can  we  make  it  to  harmonize  with  the 
eighteenth  chapter  of  Ezekiel."  "  But  this  is  not  all. 
The  supposition  inverts  the  order  of  nature  and  provi- 
dence. According  to  the  tenor  of  it,  punishment  be- 
gins before  the  crime.  It  begins  before  distinct  percep- 
tion, and  understanding,  and  reason,  and  moral  sense 
are  developed.  It  begins  antecedent  to  all  sense  of  du- 
ty, and  antecedent  to  all  moral  rule.  Such  punishment, 
therefore,  precedes  the  transgression,  for  where  there  is 
no  law,  there  is  no  transgression,  and  surely  there  is  no 
law  where  there  is  no  moral  sense  or  reason,  nor  under- 
standing, nor  perception.  But  how  can  justice  make 
punishment  precede  transgression  ?  '  The  soul  that 
sinneth  shall  die,'  is  the  order  in  which  Heaven  has 
placed  the  matter.  Sin  comes  first,  punishment  is  the 
fruit  or  consequence.  By  the  theory  before  us  the  re- 
verse is  the  case."  Such  is  the  language  which  the  el- 
ements of  that  nature  which  God  has  given  us  begin  to 
extort  from  the  sternest  sect  of  the  followers  of  Calvin 
in  this  country. 

There  seems  to  be  something  peculiarly  hard  in  the 
arrangement  that  the  imputation  and  consequences  of 
Adam's  sin   should  fall   upon   his  posterity.     If  there 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  125 

were  any  system  of  imputation  which  would  stand  the 
test  of  reason,  it  would  be  precisely  the  reverse  of  this. 
The  sins  of  Adam's  posterity  mif^ht  be  visited  on  him 
with  somethintf  like  justice,  since  he,  according  to  this 
system,  was  the  real  cause  of  them  all.  But  we  go  on 
to  say,  that  imputed  guilt  and  substituted  punishment, 
are  in  their  own  nature  impossible,  and  a  contradiction 
in  terms.  Punishment,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term, 
can  be  inflicted  only  on  the  guilty.  Inflicted  on  any 
one  else,  it  is  not  punishment,  but  injustice,  cruelty. 
What  would  be  the  feeling  of  the  soul  of  an  infant 
which  had  lived  but  a  few  days,  when  it  should  awake 
for  the  first  time  to  a  consciousness  of  being  in  the 
flames  of  hell,  and  it  was  told  that  it  was  the  punish- 
ment of  Adam's  sin,  which  it  was  suffering  ;  would  con- 
science, would  reason  recognize  the  justice  of  such  a 
doom,  would  not  the  sense  of  injustice  and  tyranny,  un- 
speakable and  inconceivable,  predominate  even  over 
the  sense  of  suffering  and  anguish  forever  and  ever  ? 

But  it  is  said,  that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  and 
representative  of  the  human  race,  and  therefore  his  fall 
necessarily  involved  all  his  offspring,  and  therefore  it 
was  just  for  God  to  bring  the  consequences  of  his  fall 
upon  all  his  offspring.  We  answer,  that  this  does  not 
relieve  the  difficulty  in  the  least.  It  was  no  less  injus- 
tice to  suspend  the  eternal  condition  of  millions  on  the 
choice  of  one  man  in  one  moment  of  his  life.  There 
must  have  been  a  peculiar  relation  between  Adam  and 
his  posterity,  which  does  not  exist  between  men  in  af- 
ter periods  and  their  children.  It  is  not  pretended  that 
children  are  at  this  period  of  the  world  accountable  for 
II* 


126  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

the  acts  of  their  parents.  Why  should  the  children  of 
Adam  have  been  ?  There  was  certainly  no  natural  ten- 
dency in  the  nature  of  Adam's  sin  to  produce  any  phys- 
ical cliange  for  the  worse.  There  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  the  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit  would  dete- 
riorate and  pollute  the  physical  constitution  any  more 
than  any  other  kind  of  food.  The  injury,  therefore, 
must  have  been  mental  entirely,  and  therefore  it  could 
not  be  transmitted.  All  souls  come  from  God,  and 
they  have  precisely  that  constitution  which  he  is  pleased 
to  give  them.  It  follows  then  that  the  sin  of  Adam  en- 
tirely changed  the  Divine  determination  with  regard  to 
the  moral  nature  with  which  he  was  to  bring  his  poster- 
ity into  existence.  Had  he  not  sinned,  God  would 
have  brought  them  into  being  entirely  pure,  under  his 
favour,  instead  of  under  his  wrath.  Adam  did  not  cre- 
ate his  own  children,  nor  could  he  have  the  least  agen- 
cy in  giving  this  or  that  moral  constitution  to  their  souls. 
Is  it  at  all  credible  that  God  should  have  suspended  his 
own  action  upon  the  choice  of  Adam  ? 

A  more  awful  consequence  follows  immediately  after 
thisi.  It  follows  that  on  this  act  of  Adam  depended  the 
determination  of  God  to  make  the  immortal  souls  of  the 
myriads  of  the  human  race  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be 
the  objects  of  his  love  and  favour,  or  of  his  immediate 
hatred,  wrath  and  damnation.  So  the  Deity  is  repre- 
se»ted  as  having  settled  the  doom  of  mankind  by  an 
event,  which,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  was  mere- 
ly fortuitous,  as  if  by  the  turn  of  a  die.  A  proceeding 
more  entirely  arbitrary  and  cruel  I  confess  myself  una- 
ble ta  conceive. 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  127 

We  object  to  this  theory,  in  the  next  place,  tiiat  it 
makes  the  present  condition  of  nnan,  considered  as  a 
state  of  trial,  a  mere  mockery.  He  has  been  entirely 
incapacitated  for  a  state  of  trial  by  the  fault  of  his  first 
parents.  If  all  man's  moral  constitution  is  so  perverted 
as  to  be  disabled  from  all  good,  and  inclined  to  all  evil, 
is  there  any  fairness  in  his  trial  ?  Supposing  a  man's 
salvation  were  to  be  suspended  on. his  abstinence  from 
stimulating  drinks,  would  it  be  just  to  create  within  him 
such  a  morbid  tliirst  as  is  produced  by  long  habits  of 
intemperance,  which  at  length  gives  a  bias  to  the  will 
so  strong  as  almost  to  destroy  all  freedom  and  account- 
ableness?  That  freedom,  which  accountableness  ac- 
quires, demands  that  the  scales  should  be  hung  equally 
balanced.  A  heavy  weight  thrown  on  one  side  entire- 
ly destroys  all  honesty  and  fairness  in  whatever  is  sub- 
mitted to  the  trial. 

If  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  be  true,  then  is  there 
no  fairness  in  man's  trial  here  below.  All  the  com- 
mands of  God's  law  are  addressed  to  a  being  as  incapa- 
ble of  performing  them  as  a  dead  man  to  rise  out  of 
his  grave.  All  the  promises  of  God's  word  are  insin- 
cere, that  is,  addressed  to  a  being  as  incapable  of  per- 
forming the  conditions,  as  he  is  of  creating  a  world. 
And  what  is  more  practical  injustice,  we  are  punished 
just  as  much  as  if  we  had  a  fair  trial.  We  are  deprived 
of  all  that  good,  which  we  might  have  attained  had  our 
natures  been  created  pure.  Our  consciences  reproach 
,  us  for  all  the  ill  we  do,  and  make  us  just  as  miserable, 
as  if  we  were  not  radically  and  constitutionally  inclined 
to  all  evil,  and  disabled  to  any  good.     We  are  like  a 


128  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

diseased  man  in  some  awful  dream.  We  see  and  feel 
the  ruin  that  is  coming  upon  us,  and  are  filled  with  hor- 
ror, but  still  we  have  no  power  to  resist  or  avert  it. 
Conscience  bears  a  false  testimony,  and  reproaches  us 
for  doing  evil,  when  we  had  no  power  to  do  otherwise. 

But  there  seems  to  be  much  more  made  of  the  fall 
than  the  Scriptures  will  bear  out.  Let  us  examine  the 
record.  "  And  the  Lord  God  took  the  man  and  put 
him  in  the  garden  of  Eden  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it. 
And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man  saying,  of  ev- 
ery tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat.  But  of 
the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  thou  shall 
not  eat  of  it:  for  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die."  Now  is  there  one  word  of  a 
covenant  in  all  this?  Is  there  any  assent  of  Adam 
spoken  of?  There  is  a  command  on  the  part  of  God 
and  also  a  threat,  but  no  trace  of  a  covenant  of  works, 
as  has  been  deduced  from  it  in  later  ages.  Is  there 
one  word  said  of  Adam's  being  the  federal  head  of  his 
posterity,  or  of  their  fate  being  involved  in  what  he  did  ? 
Is  it  not  all  personal  to  himself?  So  far  from  Adam's 
covenanting  to  act  for  his  posterity,  there  is  not  one 
word  said  of  it,  nor  is  it  even  intimated  that  he  was  ap- 
prised of  the  fact.  Indeed  as  to  any  posterity,  it  is  dif- 
ficult for  us  to  conceive  how  such  an  idea  could  have 
entered  into  his  mind  ;  for  it  is  not  till  the  next  verse 
that  we  read  of  the  creation  of  woman. 

Let  us  now  consider  what  is  meant  by  the  threat 
"  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Are  we  to  interpret  this  lit- 
erally ?  Is  it  probable  that  God  would  suspend  his  ex- 
istence upon  his  obedience,  and  determine  for  this  one 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  129 

offence  to  destroy  the  work  of  his  own  hands,  which  he 
had  so  lately  created  ?  Is  it  not  more  probable  that  in 
relating  this,  Moses  uses  the  language  of  his  own  period. 
And  what  is  that  language  ?  Hear  the  language  of  this 
same  Moses  to  the  Israelites.  "  I  call  heaven  and  earth 
to  record  this  day  against  you,  that  I  have  set  before 
you  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing:  therefore 
choose  life  that  both  thou  and  thy  seed  may  Hve."  Now 
is  it  not  evident,  that  life  and  death  here  mean  the  same 
thing  as  blessing  and  cursing,  that  is  prosperity  and 
happiness,  or  adversity  and  suffering  ?  So  in  the  chap- 
ter we  read  this  evening  from  Ezekiel,  is  it  not  evident 
that  the  threat  of  death  means  calamity,  all  the  evils 
which  are  consequent  upon  sin,  not  the  bare  event  of 
death  itself.  For  that,  in  God's  real  providence,  of 
which  these  promises  and  threatenings  are  the  mere  an- 
nunciation, is  only  a  remote,  not  an  immediate  conse- 
quence. God  does  not  put  every  sinner  immediately 
to  death,  for  in  so  doing  he  would  extinguish  the  race 
at  once.  It  would  give  them  no  fair  trial,  to  make  their 
existence  to  depend  on  one  act.  God  gives  men,  he 
gave  these  very  Israelites,  whom  he  threatened,  the  dis- 
cipline of  a  whole  life.  Have  we  not  then  every  reason 
to  suppose  that  Moses  uses  language  in  the  same  sense 
in  speaking  of  God's  threatening  to  Adam  ;  that  it  was 
a  general  and  not  a  specific  threat  ?  We  are  compelled 
to  adopt  this  meaning  if  we  would  not  accuse  the  Deity 
of  insincerity.  For  we  find  that  he  did  not  put  an  end 
to  Adam's  existence  on  the  very  day  he  sinned.  If  we 
would  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  character  of  God 
for  consistency,  sincerity,  and  veracity,  we  must  consid- 


130  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

er  that  the  general  threat  of  death,  or  whatever  threat 
Moses  intended  to  say  God  pronounced  to  Adam, 
tneant  just  what  evil  God  afterwards  really  inflicted 
upon  him.  And  what  was  that  evil  ?  Expulsion  from 
Paradise,  where  everything  grew  spontaneously,  into 
the  world  which  required  cultivation. 

"  And  unto  Adam  he  said.  Because  thou  hast  heark- 
ened unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife,  and  hast  eaten  of  the 
tree,  whereof  I  commanded  thee,  saying,  then  shalt  thou 
not  eat  of  it ;  cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake,  in  sor- 
row shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life.  Thorns 
also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  unto  thee,  and  thou 
shalt  eat  the  herb  of  the  field.  In  the  sweat  of  thy 
face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto  the 
ground,  for  out  of  it  wast  thou  taken,  for  dust  thou  art 
and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."  "  Unto  the  woman 
he  said,  I  will  greatly  multiply  thy  sorrow  and  thy  con- 
ception. In  sorrow  shalt  thou  bring  forth  children. 
And  thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy  husband,  and  he  shall 
have  rule  over  thee.''  Here  then  are  detailed  and  enu- 
merated all  the  consequences  and  penalties  of  the  first 
transgression.  And  what  are  they  ?  "  Cursed  be"  not 
thou,  but  "  the  ground,  for  thy  sake."  Thou  shalt  la- 
bor for  thy  bread  all  thy  life,  (then  he  was  to  have  had 
a  life  at  any  rate,)  till  thou  return  to  the  dust  out  of 
which  thou  wert  taken. 

Adam's  mortality  is  usually  ascribed  to  his  sin.  But 
even  this  dogma  is  not  borne  out  by  this  enumeration 
of  the  penalties  of  the  first  transgression.  The  reason 
for  it  given  here  is,  that  man  is  made  of  dust.  "  For 
dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."      He  is 


ORIGINAL   SIN.  131 

to  die,  not  because  he  had  sinned,  but  because  he  was 
made  with  a  frail,  perishable  body.  His  sole  penalty 
was  to  labor  while  he  lived. 

The  woman  was  to  be  subjected  to  her  husband,  and 
to  suffer  the  pains  and  cares  of  bearing  children.  Is 
there  one  penalty  here,  we  would  earnestly  ask,  of  a 
moral  nature?  Is  it  not  all  purely  physical?  Is  there 
any  intimation  of  such  an  amazing  change  of  their  own 
moral  constitution  for  the  worse  ?  Does  God  say  one 
word  of  any  great  moral  change  in  the  natural  charac- 
ter and  constitution  of  their  offspring  in  consequence  of 
this  one  act  of  disobedience  ?  Is  there  one  word  said 
of  them  and  their  offspring  being  indisposed,  disabled, 
and  made  opposite  to  all  that  is  good,  and  wholly  in- 
clined to  all  evil  ?  How  do  men  dare  to  interpolate 
such  a  horrid  doctrine  into  the  word  of  God  out  of  their 
own  invention,  without  the  support  of  one  word  or  syl- 
lable in  it?  If  this  doctrine  is  true,  God  did  not  tell 
man  the  true  penalty,  neither  the  truth,  nor  the  whole 
truth,  nor  a  hundredth  part  of  the  truth.  To  have  told 
the  whole  truth,  according  to  this  hypothesis,  he  should 
have  said.  "  Because  ye  have  done  this,  cursed  be  that 
moral  nature  which  I  have  given  you.  Henceforth 
such  is  the  change  I  make  in  your  natures,  that  ye  shall 
be,  and  your  offspring,  infinitely  odious  and  hateful  in 
my  sight.  The  moment  their  souls  shall  go  forth  from 
my  forming  hand,  so  detestable  will  they  be  in  my  sight, 
that  I  will  plunge  them  instantly  into  the  eternal  fires 
of  hell,  or  if  they  are  suffered  to  live,  such  shall  be  the 
diseased  constitution  of  their  moral  natures,  that  they 
shall  have  no  freedom  to  do  one  single  good  action,  but 


132  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

everything  they  do  shall  be  sin,  till  death  lands  them 
with  their  infant  brethren  in  the  regions  of  woe,  unless 
it  may  be  a  few,  whom  I  will  choose,  and  renovate  and 
change  their  natures  by  my  own  almighty  power." 
What  an  awful  blot  would  such  a  curse  and  doom  have 
been  upon  the  first  pages  of  the  Bible !  Such  a  blot 
do  they  put  there,  who  have  pretended  to  draw  such  a 
doctrine  from  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis.  There  is 
not  the  least  hint  in  these  chapters  that  Adam  sustain- 
ed a  greater  moral  change  by  his  first  sin,  than  any 
other  accountable  being,  or  that  the  mora4  constitution 
of  his  offspring  was  any  more  affected  by  that  sin  than 
any  subsequent  one,  or  the  offspring  of  any  other  man 
by  any  other  sin.  The  trial  was  not  a  moral  one,  so 
far  as  the  essential  character  of  the  act  was  concerned. 
I  mean  by  this,  the  act  was  evil  not  from  its  own  na- 
ture, but  merely  from  being  prohibited.  It  had  no  ten- 
dency \o  degrade  and  vitiate  his  character  any  further 
than  as  a  simple  act  of  disobedience.  It  was  not  like 
intemperance  or  passion,  which,  besides  being  prohib- 
ited, are  evils  in  themselves,  and  debase  and  injure  the 
moral  nature.  Its  penalty  was  not  moral,  but  physical, 
did  not  touch  the  soul  but  only  man's  outward  con- 
dition. 

And  here  we  cannot  but  pause  to  ask,  if  there  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  a  great  deal  of  romancing  up- 
on the  wonderfully  advantageous  condition  in  which 
Adam  was  created,  when  compared  with  any  of  his' 
posterity?  For  my  own  part,  I  never  could  perceive 
that  he  had  any  other  distinction  besides  that  of  being 
the  first  man  and  the  first  sinner.      We  are  told  indeed, 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  133 

by  Creeds  and  Catechisms,  that  he  was  created  wkh 
"  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holiness."  But 
these  ideas  are  derived  from  any  source  rather  than  the 
sacred  record.  It  seems  more  likely  that  his  condition, 
so  far  as  his  intellectual  and  moral  nature  was  concern- 
ed, was  rather  that  of  childhood.  With  the  exception 
of  ferocity  and  depravity,  his  condition  is  more  likely 
to  have  resembled  that  of  the  naked  savage,  than  any 
other  of  which  we  can  conceive.  Without  experience, 
without  traditionary  knowledge,  without  arts  or  science, 
what  could  his  condition  have  been,  but  that  of  a  mere 
animal,  or  rather,  an  infant  with  the  powers  of  ration- 
ality only,  but  without  the  full  development  of  reason. 
Knowledge  comes  by  time,  and  the  use  of  the  senses, 
observation  and  reflection.  Righteousness  is  right  con- 
duct, according  to  a  rule.  How  can  a  man  acquire 
righteousness  before  he  has  acted  in  correspondence  to 
a  rule  ?  Holiness  is  freedom  from  sin,  when  the  power 
of  sinning  is  possessed.  How  then  could  he  be  super- 
abundantly either  righteous  or  holy,  who  sinned  and 
fell  the  very  first  opportunity,  in  the  first  trial  to  which 
he  was  subjected  ? 

But  it  is  concluded  that  he  was  peculiarly  formed  in 
holiness  and  righteousness,  because  he  is  said  to  have 
been  made  in  the  image  of  God.  It  is  said  that  this 
image  was  a  moral  likeness,  and  that  sin  destroyed  this 
image.  It  is  quite  as  likely  that  this  image  of  God 
means  the  intellectual  as  the  moral  nature,  that  which 
gives  him  a  dominion  over  the  creatures.  For  in  the 
first  place,  neither  man  nor  any  other  being  can  be 
made  with  any  positive  moral  qualities.  He  may  have 
12 


134  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

capacities.  But  capacities  are  neither  holy  nor  unholy, 
till  they  have  been  exercised  rightly  or  wrongly.  Holi- 
ness and  righteousness,  as  well  as  sin,  cannot,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  precede  moral  action.  In  the  second 
place,  the  image  of  God  could  not  mean  moral  charac- 
ter, because,  according  to  the  theory  we  are  opposing, 
that  image  must  have  been  lost  at  the  fall.  And  long 
after  the  fall,  we  find  God  forbidding  murder  on  this 
ground,  that  man  is  made  in  the  image  of  God.  If  in- 
nocence and  righteousness  constituted  that  image,  then 
after  the  fall  that  reason  ceased  to  exist.  It  was  no 
worse  to  kill  a  man  than  a  beast,  so  far  as  that  reason 
was  concerned,  that  he  was  made  in  the  image  of  God. 
Wiiere  then  is  the  ground  for  supposing  the  great 
superiority  of  Adam  to  his  posterity  ?  Has  not  that 
very  labor  to  which  he  was  condemned,  been  the  means 
of  perfecting  his  nature,  and  cultivating  all  his  virtues? 
Is  not  industry  the  frame-work  of  all  there  is  great  and 
good  in  man  ?  Consider  the  state  of  those  nations 
whose  condition  approaches  nearest  to  that  of  Adam  in 
ease  and  abundance,  compared  with  those  who  are 
nearest  to  his  state  when  driven  from  Paradise  into  a 
bleak  and  barren  world.  Who  does  not  know,  that 
the  balance  of  intellectual  and  moral  perfection,  happi- 
ness and  virtue,  is  altogether  on  the  side  of  the  labori- 
ous, the  sufferers  from  this  very  curse  of  eating  bread 
by  the  sweat  of  the  face  ?  C  )mpare  with  theirs  the 
condition  of  a  pair  at  the  present  degenerate  day  com- 
mencing life  together.  Let  them  have  been  educated 
in  all  that  the  experience  and  ingenuity  of  man  have 
accumulated,  of  wisdom,  of  moral  and  intellectual  dis- 


ORIGINAL   SIN.  135 

cipline.  Let  them  have  even  a  moderate  share  of  the 
conveniences  and  comforts  of  hfe,  let  them  have  the 
endearments  of  society,  the  delights  of  literature,  and 
the  daily  gratification  of  learning  what  is  going  on  in 
this  wide  world.  Would  they  consider  it  a  great  eleva- 
tion, privilege,  and  exaltation  to  be  transported  to  some 
solitary  island,  though  filled  with  all  that  is  represented 
to  have  blessed  and  adorned  the  garden  of  Eden  ?  Just 
commensurate  with  that  exaltation  was  the  fall  of  Adam, 
according  to  the  sacred  record.  When  you  come  to 
strip  this  transaction  of  the  coloring  which  imagination 
has  thrown  over  it,  there  is  nothing  in  the  state  of 
Adam  in  comparison  with  ours  to  envy,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  his  innocence,  and  that  he  lost  quite  as  soon 
after  his  creation,  as  man  ordinarily  does  in  the  state  of 
infancy  and  childhood. 

The  very  trial,  to  which  he  is  represented  as  having 
been  subjected,  is  one  suited  rather  to  a  being  in  in- 
fantile weakness  and  imbecility,  than  a  state  of  strength, 
of  maturity,' and  enlarged  intellectual  action. 

But  it  is  urged,  that  the  actual  corruption  of  mankind 
proves  their  original  corruption,  the  corruption  of  their 
nature.  How  happens  it,  that  all  sin  as  soon  as  they 
have  an  opportunity  ?  There  must  have  been  an  evil 
inclination,  which  preceded  the  first  act.  That  evil  in- 
clination was  original  sin.  If  actual  sin  proves  an  evil 
inclination,  and  an  evil  inclination  proves  original  sin, 
a  constitutional,  inherent  defect,  then  Adam  never  fell 
at  all,  for  he  too,  must  have  been  created  with  original 
sin.  If  the  first  sin  in  every  human  being  proves  a 
corrupt  nature,  so  the  first  sin  in  Adam   proved  a  cor- 


136  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

rupt  nature  in  Iiim.  And  if  his  first  sin  is  consistent 
with  original  innocence,  so  is  the  first  sin  of  every  one 
of  his  descendants.  If  there  is  necessity  to  suppose 
original  corruption  in  order  to  account  for  our  first 
transgression,  so  there  is  just  as  much  necessity  to  sup- 
pose original  corruption  in  Adam.  And  if  this  original 
corruption  and  fault  of  nature  deserves  God's  wrath 
and  curse  in  us,  before  moral  action,  it  must  likewise 
have  deserved  it  in  him  before  his  fall.  Besides,  those 
who  hold  this  doctrine,  likewise  believe  that  there  is  a 
class  of  fallen  angels,  with  Satan  at  their  head,  who 
were  once  innocent,  but  rebelled,  and  sinned  against 
God.  Now  if  sin  proves  original  disposition,  and  cor- 
ruption of  nature,  as  is  alleged  in  man,  and  if  this  dis- 
position and  corruption  of  nature  before  any  actual  sin 
deserves  God's  wrath  and  damnation,  as  is  said  in  the 
case  of  man,  then  the  angels  who  really  fell,  must  have 
deserved  damnation  ages  before  they  did  anything 
amiss.  If  it  is  possible  to  account  for  the  first  sin  of 
the  fallen  angels  without  original  corruption,  then  it  is 
just  as  easy  to  account  for  the  first  sin  of  every  human 
being  without  original  sin. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  is  it  not  according  to  the  analo- 
gy of  God's  actual  dealings  with  men,  that  all  man- 
kind should  be  in  worse  outward  condition,  and  have  a 
more  depraved  disposition  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin  ?  Do  we  not  see  the  outward  condition  of  children 
made  worse  by  the  vices  of  their  parents?  Do  we  not 
see  them  inherit  bad  dispositions  and  vicious  propensi- 
ties from  their  parents  ?  Do  not  we  see  them  sinners 
apparently  because   their  parents  were  ?     Hear  what 


ORIGINAL   SIN.  137 

God  says  on  this  subject,  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of 
Ezekiel.  He  denies  that  there  is  any  effect  of  this  kind, 
which  affects  moral  agency.  He  says  what  must  be 
true,  that  the  vices  of  [)arents  have  the  nature  of  warn- 
ings as  well  as  evil  examples.  ''  Now  lo,  if  he  beget  a 
son  that  seeth  all  his  father's  sins  which  he  hath  done, 
and  considereth  and  doeth  not  such  like,  he  shall  not 
die  for  the  iniquity  of  his  father."  "  Yet  ye  say,  why, 
doth  not  the  son  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father  ?  When 
the  son  hath  done  that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  and 
hath  kept  all  my  statutes  and  hath  done  them,  he  shall 
surely  live.  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die.  The 
son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father,  nor  the  fa- 
ther the  iniquity  of  the  son  ;  the  righteousness  of  the 
righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  and  the  wickedness  of  the 
wicked  shall  be  upon  him."  Here  is  an  explicit  denial, 
both  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  of  that  close 
connection  between  the  character  of  the  father  and  the 
character  of  the  son,  which  is  asserted  in  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin.  We  see  it  in  the  world.  There  is  the 
utmost  variety  of  character,  even  among  members  of 
the  same  family,  the  children  of  the  same  parents,  and 
having  the  same  example  and  education. 

But  do  not  children  suffer  from  their  connection  with 
bad  parents  ?  We  answer,  yes.  But  this  is  not  pecu- 
liar to  the  relation  of  parents  and  children.  We  are 
liable  to  suffer  morally  and  physically  from  our  connec- 
tion with  every  one  with  whom  we  associate.  We  are 
liable  to  be  corrupted,  or  robbed,  or  deceived,  or  mur- 
dered even,  by  a  perfect  stranger.  The  good  or  evi] 
we  receive  from  our  parents  is  greater  than  any  other, 
12*       . 


138 


ORIGINAL   SIN. 


because  with  them  we  have  a  closer,  more  important 
and  lasting  connection.  As  we  are  free  beings,  both 
parents  and  children,  we  could  not  receive  the  good 
without  being  exposed  to  the  evil.  On  the  whole,  the 
good  preponderates,  both  in  that  and  in  every  other  re- 
lation. That  evil  should  be  admitted  into  it,  is  no  more 
strange  than  that  it  should  have  been  admitted  into 
the  universe  at  all.  And  men,  Christ  has  told  us,  are 
accountable,  not  for  what  they  have  not,  but  for  what 
they  have.  God  is  not  a  hard  master,  reaping  where 
he  has  not  sown,  requiring  the  full  tale  of  brick,  and 
withholding  the  straw.  The  circumstances  of  every 
human  being  are  diverse  from  those  of  every  other  hu- 
man being,  the  talents  and  opportunities  different.  One 
of  these  circumstances  is  the  moral  qualities  of  our  pa- 
rents, and  those  diversities  of  disposition  and  tempera- 
ment, if  any  such  there  be,  which  we  have  inherited 
from  them.  And  if  the  representations  of  the  Scrip- 
ture are  true,  they  will  all  be  taken  into  account  by  a 
righteous  God,  in  the  judgment  of  each. 

And  here  we  are  led  to  remark,  that  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  while  it  reflects  the  highest  dishonor  on  the 
character  of  God,  and  adds  gloom  to  our  conceptions 
of  the  miserable  condition  of  man  under  such  a  govern- 
ment, and  is  apparently  intended  to  humble  mankind, 
in  fact  annihilates  human  guilt  ;  Itogether.  The  more 
depraved  man's  nature  is  by  an  agency  not  his  own, 
the  less  to  blame  is  he  for  doing  wrong.  A  man  who 
is  famishing  is  less  to  blame  for  stealing  than  one  whose 
appetite  is  fully  supplied.  So  if  God  creates  men  dev- 
ils, he  cannot  expect  anything  from  them  but  the  ac- 


ORIGINAL,   SIN. 


139 


(ions  and  characters  of  devils.  He  cannot  create  a 
bramble  and  then  expect  from  it  grapes  or  figs.  He 
cannot  create  a  tiger  and  then  punish  it  because  it  does 
not  behave  with  the  gentleness  of  a  lamb.  He  cannot 
create  a  fish  with  a  nature  to  swim  in  the  sea,  and 
then  punish  it  because  it  does  not  walk  upon  the  shore. 
He  cannot  make  an  animal  with  a  violent  antipathy  to 
water,  "  disabled,  disinclined  and  made  opposite"  to  it, 
and  altogether  inclined  to  live  on  land,  and  then  pun- 
ish it  for  not  diving  into  the  ocean.  God  expects  all 
creatures  to  act  according  to  their  natures,  or  he  would 
not  have  given  them  such  natures.  He  would  have 
given  them  natures  best  calculated  for  that  action  which 
best  pleases  him.  The  nature  he  gives  them  is  the 
strongest  possible  indication  of  his  design,  and  the  pur- 
pose for  which  they  are  made.  God  creates  us  as  really 
through  our  parents  as  he  did  Adam  without  parents. 
And  we  have  just  the  constitution  and  nature  which  he 
designed,  as  much  as  he  had.  If  sin  be  the  only,  the 
necessary,  the  natural  action  of  our  constitution,  or  of 
that  combination  of  powers  which  God  has  given  us, 
then  sin  is  the  natural  use  and  exercise  of  all  our  facul- 
ties, and  must  be  presumed  to  be  the  end  for  which  they 
were  made.  Sin  is  then  the  natural  use,  not  the  perver-  ■ 
sion,of  our  powers.  Sin  then  is  no  longer  sin.  Virtue 
would  be  a  perversion,  would  be  sin.  The  very  essence  of 
sin  is,  that  it  is  a  perversion  of  our  nature  and  powers  from 
the  end  and  use  for  which  they  were  designed,  to  some- 
thing else.  The  end  of  a  thing  cannot  possibly  be  other 
than  the  only  end  which  it  is  made  capable  of  attaining. 
Then  if  sin  be  the  only  thing  which  man  by  his  natural 


140  ORItilNAI.   SIN. 

powers  can  do,  sin  is  the  end  for  which  he  is  made. 
Virtue  cannot  be  the  end  for  which  man  is  made,  if  he 
is  made  naturally  utterly  incapable  of  virtue.  So  this 
system,  in  its  zeal  to  break  man  down  and  humble  him 
under  a  sense  of  his  sin,  overshoots  its  mark,  proves  too 
much,  defeats  its  own  object,  and  makes  man  no  sinner 
at  all.  For  the  power  to  do  right  is  necessary  to  the 
guilt  of  doing  wrong.  The  power  to  obey  is  indispen- 
sable to  the  moral  turpitude  of  disobedience.  All  guilt 
supposes  choice  of  evil  when  good  was  in  our  power. 
If  good  is  not  within  our  choice,  then  the  very  condi- 
tion is  taken  away  which  constitutes  any  act  sin..  Ac- 
countability and  power,  according  to  the  eternal  laws 
of  justice  and  the  nature  of  things,  must  be  always  pre- 
cisely commensurate  with  each  other.  To  suppose 
that  God  made  man  for  virtue,  and  gave  him  such  a 
constitution  that  its  natural  spontaneous  and  necessary 
fruit  and  action  is  vice,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
Man's  nature,  the  nature  of  every  individual  born  into 
the  world,  is  given  him  by  God.  The  parents  are 
merely  the  instruments  in  his  hands.  If  he  chooses  to 
work  with  vitiated,  imperfect  instruments,  so  as  to  vi- 
tiate and  ruin  the  nature  and  constitution  of  the  being 
Jie  creates,  so  that  it  naturally  and  necessarily  goes 
wrong  forever,  then  it  is  an  act  of  his  sovereign  plea- 
sure, perfectly  arbitrary  if  the  being  be  incapable  of 
suffering  from  going  wrong,  and  perfectly  unjust,  tyran- 
nical and  cruel,  if  he  be  capable  of  misery. 

But  it  may  here  be  asked,  how  happens  it  that  man 
is  a  sinner?  Why,  if  man  be  created  innocent  and 
pure,  does  it  happen  that  every  man  violates  the  laws 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  141 

of  God  ?  I  can  give  no  better  answer  to  this,  than  the 
account  which  the  Westminster  divines  have  given  of 
the  causes  of  Adam's  first  sin.  '•'  Our  First  Parents," 
say  they,  with  great  simplicity,  "being  left  to  the  free- 
dom of  their  own  will,  fell  from  the  state  wherein  they 
were  created,  by  sinning  against  God."  So  we  say  of 
all  their  offspring,  being  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own 
will,  they  fall  from  the  state  wherein  they  were  created 
by  sinning  against  God.  If  then  we  have  no  need  of 
going  further  back  with  the  parents  why  is  there  with 
their  offspring? 

The  capacity,  the  possibility  of  sin,  and  temptations 
to  it,  are  involved  as  necessary  to  the  very  state  of  pro- 
bation and  trial.  Without  this  possibility,  capacity, 
temptation,  there  could  be  no  virtue,  no  merit,  no  re- 
ward.. There  must,  in  order  to  a  fair  trial,  be  a  balance 
in  the  mind  between  temptation,  and  reason  and 
conscience,  such  as  that  the  will  may  turn  it  either 
way.  It  is  tp  be  supposed,  is  it  not,  that  man  would 
sometimes  do  wrong  as  well  as  right  ?  He  has  a  con- 
stitution, all  the  parts  of  which  minister  to  his  happiness 
if  rightly  used.  But  everything  is  capable  of  abuse. 
Pleasure  may  be  sought  in  violation  of  the  moral  sense. 
Of  course  sin  and  ultimate  unhappiness  is  the  result. 
But  that  very  misery  is  calculated  to  cure  the  sin,  and 
teach  us  to  avoid  it  in  future,  so  that  even  retributory 
suffering  is  iiot  pure,  unmingled  evil.  Though  nause- 
ous, it   is  medicinal,  and  tends  to  restore  moral  health. 

It  only  remains  to  examine  the  few,  very  few,  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  in  which  it  is  thought  that  this  doc- 
trine is  taui?ht.     We  have  seen  that  original  sin  is  not 


142  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

taught  either  expressly  or  by  implication  in  Genesis. 
Neither  man's  mortality,  nor  the  sinfulness  of  his  off- 
spring is  there  made  the  penalty  of  his  sin.  We  do 
not  deny  that  the  Jews,  in  after  ages,  invented  these 
and  many  other  fictions  concerning  the  fall,  as  for  in- 
stance the  devil's  animating  and  speaking  through  the 
serpent,  and  that  these  superstitions  are  alluded  to  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles  in  the  New  Testament,  in  illus- 
tration of  the  Gospel.  But  we  do  say,  that  they  were 
never  expressly  taught  by  them  as  a  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian scheme.  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  makes 
use  of  this  superstition  to  illustrate  his  own  argument, 
and  reasons  with  them  upon  the  supposition  of  its  truth. 
But  so  did  Christ  speak  of  an  unclean  spirit,  when  it 
was  cast  out  of  a  man,  walking  through  dry  places  and, 
finding  no  rest,  all  which  is  taken  from  the  Rabbinical 
fables  of  that  period.  Paul  uses  the  argumentum  ad 
hominem,  as  it  is  called,  uses  an  argument  well  calcu- 
lated to  strike  the  Jews,  but  which  when  reduced  to  the 
strict  rules  of  logic,  would  not  be  conclusive  to  us  :  "  As 
in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive." 
Now  it  is  not  pretended  that  Christ  is  the  absolute  au- 
thor of  immortality  to  man,  but  that  he  made  it  known 
and  proved  it  by  his  resurrection.  There  is  no  more 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  mortality  of  mankind  is  any 
more  nearly  connected  with  Adam,  except  the  deriva- 
tion of  a  mortal  nature  from  him.  It  has  jpeen  trans- 
lated, with  good  reason,  "  As  like  Adam  all  die,  so  like 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  Doctrines  may  be  re- 
ferred to,  nay,  assumed  as  true  for  the  sake  of  illustra- 
tion, without  affirming  their  truth.     That  strict  argu- 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  143 

ment  is  not  intended,  but  illustration,  we  learn  from  the 
nature  of  the  comparison.  "  Since  by  man  came  death, 
by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead."  Now 
those  who  maintain  original  sin,  do  not  believe  that  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  produced  the  immortality  of  man, 
but  only  made  it  certain.  He  was  the  first  who  rose. 
The  looseness  of  the  argument  does  not  require  that 
Adam  should  have  produced  the  death  of  his  descend- 
ants, but  only  death  came  by  him  in  such  a  sense  that 
he  ♦was  the  first  mortal,  and  his  posterity  inherit  from 
him  a  nature  subject  to  mortality. 

"  And  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  even  as 
others."  Examine  your  Bibles  and  you  will  find  that 
the  apostle  is  not  here  speaking  of  the  moral  condition 
in  which  men  are  born  in  contrast  with  any  possible 
state  of  innocence  in  which  they  might  have  been  cre- 
ated, but  is  contrasting  their  present  state  of  Christian 
purity  with  their  former  licentious  practical  conduct,  in 
their  heathen  and  unconverted  state,  surrounded  as  they 
were  by  bad  example  and  manifold  corruption.  "  And 
you  hath  he  quickened  who  were  dead" — not  in  origi- 
nal sin  but  "  in  trespasses  and  sins"  of  their  own. 
"  Wherein  in  time  past  ye  walked  according  to  the 
course  of  this  world,  according  to  ihe  prince  of  the  pow- 
er of  the  air,  the  spirit  which  now  worketh  in  the  chil- 
dren of  disobedience.  Among  whom  also  we  all  had 
our  conversation  in  times  past,  in  the  lusts  of  the  flesh, 
fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind,  and 
were  naturally,"  as  it  might  be  more  accurately  render- 
ed, that  is  from   the   circumstances   in  which  we  were 


144  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

placed,  "  were  naturally  children  of  wrath,"  that  is  ex- 
posed to  sin,  and  the  sufferings  that  flow  from  it. 

A  full  explanation  of  this  passage  is  immediately  at 
hand.  Paul  uses  the  same  word  in  the  same  connection 
in  a  case  in  which  we  know  he  means  outward  circum- 
stances and  not  constitution.  He  uses  it  of  those  things 
in  which  a  Jew  differs  from  a  Gentile,  which  cannot  be 
by  constitution.  In  his  rebuke  to  Peter,  he  says,  "  If 
thou  being  a  Jew,  livest  after  the  manner  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, why  compellest  ihou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  da  the 
Jews,  who  are  Jews  hy  nature  and  not  sinners  of  the 
Gentiles."  A  Jew  by  nature  is  a  human  being  who 
has  received  a  Jewish  education,  and  a  sinner  by  nature 
is  one  who  has  been  educated  by  wicked  people.  Na- 
ture does  not  mean  constitution  in  either  case,  but  out- 
ward circumstances,  and  if  so,  this  passage  does  not 
teach  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  at  all. 

To  this  passage  we  would  oppose  the  unequivocal 
declarations  of  Christ  concerning  infants.  "  Suffer  lit- 
tle children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  "  Unless  ye  repent, 
and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  That  is,  that  infants  are  in  a  state 
which  fits  them  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  if 
this  doctrine  be  true,  then  when  men  have  come  back 
to  the  condition  of  children,  so  far  from  being  fit  for 
heaven,  they  deserve  God's  wrath,  curse,  and  damna- 
tion, for  the  very  qualities  which  he  hath  given  them. 

We  would  oppose  to  this  doctrine,  what  is  said  in 
the  book  of  Jonah  concerning  the  infants  in  the  city  of 


ORIGINAL   SIN.  145 

Nineveh.  "  Should  not  I  spare  Nineveh,  that  great 
city,"  said  God,  "  wherein  are  more  than  six  score  thou- 
sand persons  that  cannot  discern  between  their  right 
hand  and  their  left  ?"'  If  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  be 
true,  then  these  children  could  have  been  no  obstacle, 
for  if  they  deserved  God's  wrath  and  damnation,  tem- 
poral destruction  must  have  been  but  a  light  thing  for 
them  to  endure. 

We  would  oppose  to  this  doctrine  the  declaration  of 
Solomon,  concerning  the  rectitude  of  man's  moral  con- 
stitution. "  God  hath  made  man  upright,"  or  rather 
right,  "  but  they,"  not  Adam,  ''  have  sought  out  many 
inventions."  What  does  this  assert,  but  that  God  has 
made  human  nature  right  and  good,  and  that  the  natu- 
ral action  of  all  its  parts  is  good,  and  that  evil  is  an  in- 
vention, a  perversion  of  the  action  of  that  nature,  and 
a  constraint  from  that  course  which  it  is  constituted  to 
pursue.  If  the  doctrine  we  are  opposing  be  true,  the 
very  reverse  of  this  is  the  fact,  that  God  makes  men 
wrong,  and  wrong  is  their  natural  and  spontaneous  ac- 
tion. The  invention,  the  perversion  would  be  to  do 
right.  But  what  is  still  more  extravagant,  of  this  in- 
vention they  are  made  utterly  incapable. 

Such  are  the  arguments  on  which  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  rests,  and  such  are  the  reasons  why  we  re- 
ject it.  Let  each  one  judge  of  them  by  the  light  of  his 
own  understanding. 

13 


LECTURE   VI. 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

ACTS  X.  34. 
"  Then  peter  opened  his  mouth  and  said,  of  a  truth  i  perceive 

THAT  god  is  no  RESPECTER  OF  PERSONS  :  BUT  IN  EVERY  NATION 
HE  THAT  FEARETH  HIM,  AND  WORKETH  RIGHTEOUSNESS,  IS  AC- 
CEPTED WITH  HIM." 

Peter,  as  you  recollect,  was  led  to  make  this  remark, 
by  the  fact  that  Cornelius,  a  Gentile,  had  received  a 
peculiar  mark  of  God's  favor  and  approbation.  God 
had  said  to  him  in  a  vision,  "  Cornelius,  thy  prayers 
and  thine  alms  are  come  up  for  a  memorial  before  God." 
This,  to  Peter,  wras  utterly  astonishing,  bound  up  as  he 
was  in  his  narrow  Jewish  prejudices,  and  conceiving 
that  no  one  but  a  Jew  could  be  saved.  "  Of  a  truth  I 
perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons ;  but  in 
every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  right- 
eousness, is  accepted  with  him."  This  declaration  of 
Peter  seems  to  my  mind  to  assert  the  general  truth,  that 
every  human  being  in  all  nations  and  ages  is  in  a  state 
of  moral  probation,  has  some  knowledge  of  God,  or  of 
some  superhuman  Power,  and  is  capable  of  acting  with 
reference  to  that  power,  of  fearing  God  in  the  sense  of 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY.  147 

exercising  towards  him  the  sentiments  of  piety  and  rev- 
erence, has  the  capacity  of  distinguishing  right  from 
wrong,  and  of  choosing  right,  and  of  doing  all  which  is 
comprehended  in  working  righteousness ;  and  that  on 
account  of  that  righteousness  he  may  be  acceptable  to 
God.  1  know  of  no  words  that  Peter  could  have  used 
which  would  have  expressed  these  propositions  more 
plainly  and  unequivocally. 

But  in  opposition  to  this  it  is  maintained  in  most  of 
the  Creeds  and  Catechisms  of  modern  times,  that  man 
in  the  state  in  which  God  creates  him,  that  is  in  his 
natural  state,  has  no  power  to  do  anything  of  all  this. 
It  is  said  that  he  is  totally  depraved.  It  is  said  in  the 
eighteenth  Article  of  the  Creed  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land :  "  They  are  to  be  had  accursed  that  presume  to 
say  that  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect 
which  he  professeth,  so  that  he  be  diligent  to  frame  his 
life  according  to  that  law  and  the  light  of  nature." 

The  tenth  Article  of  that  Creed  is  this :  "  The  con- 
dition of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam  is  such  that  he 
cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself  by  his  own  natural 
strength,  and  good  works  to  faith,  and  calling  upon 
God  ;  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  good  works, 
pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God  without  the  grace  of 
God,  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a  good 
will,  and  working  with  us  when  we  have  that  good  will." 
Article  thirteenth,  "  Works  done  before  the  grace  of 
Christ,  and  the  inspiration  of  his  Spirit,  are  not  pleas- 
ant to  God  ;  forasmuch  as  they  spring  not  of  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ,  neither  do  they  make  men  meet  to  receive 
grace,  yea  rather,  for  that  they  are   not  done  as  God 


148  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

hath  willed  and  commanded  them  to  be  done,  we  doubt 
not  but  they  have  the  nature  of  sin." 

The  Westminster  Confession,  which  is  the  Creed  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States,  thus 
states  the  doctrine :  "  Man  in  his  state  of  innocency, 
had  freedom  and  power  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is 
good  and  well  pleasing  to  God.  Man  by  his  fall  into 
a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any 
spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation,  so  as  a  natural 
man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that  good,  and  dead 
in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to  convert  him- 
self or  prepare  himself  thereto." 

It  is  thus  expressed  in  the  Creed  which  the  Profes- 
sors of  one  of  our  Theological  Seminaries  are  obliged 
to  subscribe  every  five  years :  "  By  nature  every  man 
is  personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness,  unlike  and 
opposed  to  God,  and  previously  to  the  renewing  agency 
of  the  Divine  Spirit,  all  his  moral  actions  are  adverse 
to  the  character  and  glory  of  God,  being  morally  inca- 
pable of  recovering  the  image  of  his  Creator,  which 
was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is  justly  exposed  to  dam- 
nation." 

Edwards,  one  of  the  most  received  theological  wri- 
ters of  this  country,  says  on  this  subject :  "  So  long  as 
men  are  in  their  natural  state,  they  not  only  have  no 
good  thing,  but  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  ever 
have  or  do  any  good  thing."  "  Man's  nature  is  wholly 
infected  with  this  enmity  against  God.  Every  faculty 
and  principle  of  action  is  wholly  under  the  dominion  of 
enmity  against  God.  Every  faculty  is  entirely  and  per- 
fectly subdued  under  it,  and  enslaved  by  it.     The   un- 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY.  149 

derstanding  is  under  the  reigning  power  of  this  enmity. 
The  will  is  wholly  under  the  reigning  power  of  it.  All 
the  affections  are  governed  by  enmity  against  God  ; 
there  is  not  one  affection,  nor  one  desire,  that  a  natural 
man  has,  or  that  he  is  ever  stirred  up  to  act  from,  but 
what  contains  in  it  enmity  against  God.  A  natural 
man  is  all  full  of  enmity  against  God,  as  any  viper  or 
venomous  beast  is  full  of  poison."  "  Hanging  by  a 
slender  thread,  with  the  flames  of  divine  wrath  flashing 
around,  ready  every  moment  to  burn  it  asunder,  you 
have  nothing  to  lay  hold  of  to  save  yourself,  nothing  to 
keep  off  the  flames  of  wrath,  nothing  of  your  own,  no- 
thing that  you  can  do  to  induce  God  to  spare  you  one 
moment." 

I  submit  it  to  the  judgments  of  all  who  hear  me,  if 
these  statements  do  not  bear  the  marks  of  the  wildest 
extravagance  and  exaggeration  ?  Are  they  not  more 
like  the  raving  and  hyperbolical  expressions  of  a  man 
in  a  passion,  or  suffering  some  violent  affection  of  the 
mind,  than  of  a  calm  intellect  expressing  the  result  of 
a  candid  and  impartial  examination.  To  my  mind  this 
might  seem  a  true  picture  of  a  devil,  but  not  of  those 
men  and  women  we  meet  with  in  common  life.  And 
when  we  reflect  that  these  assertions  are  made  to  con- 
form to  an  arbitrary  system  of  theology,  a  mere  hypoth- 
esis concerning  Adam's  fall,  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
restrain  our  indignation  against  the  authors  of  such  rash 
assertions,  which  reflect  equal  dishonor  upon  God  and 
man. 

The  first  remark  we  make  upon  this  doctrine  is,  that 
if  it  be  true,  man  is  not,  in  his  natural  state,  in  a  con- 
13* 


150 


TOTAL  DEPllAVITY. 


Hition  of  fair  probation,  nor  indeed  of  probation  at  all. 
This  appears  on  the  very  face  of  the  doctrine  itself. 
"  Man  in  his  state  of  innocency  had  power  to  will  and 
to  do  that  which  is  good  and  well  pleasing  to  God. 
Man  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin  hath  wholly  lost  all 
ability  of  will  to  any  good  accompanying  salvation." 
Now  to  put  a  person  in  a  condition  of  fair  moral  trial, 
according  to  those  ideas  of  justice  which  God  has  made 
a  part  of  our  natures,  he  must  have  precisely  what 
Adam  is  represented  to  have  possessed  in  the  state  of 
innocence,  power  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  good 
and  well  pleasing  to  God.  If  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin,  God  brings  all  his  posterity  into  existence  destitute 
of  this  power,  then  they  are  not  in  a  state  of  moral  pro- 
bation. It  being  impossible  for  them  to  will  or  to  do 
anything  pleasing  to  God,  they  of  course  can  do  nothing 
acceptable  to  him.  All  the  difference  then  that  can  be 
between  one  of  their  actions  and  another  is,  that  it  is 
more  or  less  criminal.  Until  by  miraculous  agency 
this  inability  is  removed,  there  is  no  power  to  will  or 
do  right,  and  where  there  is  no  power,  there  can  be  no 
fair  trial,  and  no  just  responsibility. 

Calvin,  the  great  author  and  patron  of  this  system  in 
modern  times,  has  the  hardihood  to  deny  this  conse- 
quence. He  says,  "  The  necessity  of  sin  does  not  ren- 
der man  the  less  accountable  for  it,  nor  make  it  the 
less  proper  that  he  should  be  charged  with  it ;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  its  being  voluntary  is  no  proof  that  it 
could  be  avoided.  Exhortations,  admonitions,  and 
expostulations  are  not  administered  to  no  purpose, 
though  it  be  not  in  the  power  of  man   to  obey.     We 


TOTAL  DEPRAVl-IJT.  151 

are  not  to  infer  from  the  commands  of  God,  that  man 
has  any  power  of  observing  them.  Conditional  prom- 
ises do  not  im[)ly  that  man  has  the  free  power  of  doing 
that  upon  which  the  promise  is  suspended,  and  God  is 
not  chargeable  with  mocking  our  impotence,  when  he 
invites  us  to  deserve  his  favor,  though  he  knows  our  ut- 
ter inability  to  do  it." 

Ail  we  have  to  say  of  such  assertions  as  this  is,  that 
they  do  infinite  and  indelible  dishonor  both  to  the  head 
and  the  heart  of  him  who  made  them,  and  could  only 
have  originated  in  those  dark,  iron  and  ferocious  ages 
when  might  was  the  only  source  of  right,  and  all  hu- 
man government  was  a  tissue  of  cruelty  and  oppression. 
We  say,  that  were  this  doctrine  true,  it  would  uproot 
and  destroy  all  the  foundations  of  religion,  and  end  in 
a  cold  and  cheerless  fatalism.  All  religious  affections 
are  founded  on  the  supposition  of  God's  moral  perfec- 
tions. They  are  founded  upon  the  supposition  that  he 
is  infinitely  good  and  just.  These  qualities  are  essen- 
tial to  the  very  nature  of  God  as  an  object  of  religious 
regard.  Take  them  away,  and  we  no  longer  have  any 
God.  We  have  a  Being  at  the  head  of  the  universe, 
but  a  God  no  longer.  Suppose  him  to  require  what 
men  cannot  perform,  and  then  to  punish  them  for  not 
performing  it,  and  we  have  the  very  essence  of  tyranny. 
All  motive  for  moral  action  is  taken  away,  and  all  ground 
for  religious  affection.  We  read  of  some  savage  na- 
tions who  pay  divine  honors  to  the  Spirit  of  Evil  that 
he  may  not  hurt  them.  And  when  you  have  clothed 
the  Sovereign  of  the  Universe  with  the  attr<butes  of 
the  Spirit  of  Evil,  there  remains  but  one  motive  for 


152  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

worshipping  him,  and  that  is  the  motive  of  abject 
fear. 

But  where  did  Calvin  and  the  Westminster  divines, 
and  the  framers  of  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, get  the  knowledge  of  this  tremendous  fact,  that 
every  action  of  every  human  being  in  the  world  is  sin, 
and  unpleasing  and  unacceptable  to  the  Deity,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few,  whose  natures  he  has  changed  ?  It 
is  a  hypothesis  drawn  from  another  hypothesis.  It  is 
founded  upon  the  supposition  that  the  children  of  Adam 
are  brought  into  being  with  different  moral  faculties 
from  those,  which  he  had.  Adam,  they  say,  before  his 
fall  had  power  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  pleasant 
and  acceptable  to  God.  But  his  children  are  diflferent- 
ly  constituted.  What  proof  have  we  of  this,  except 
the  bare  assertion  of  these  men  ?  It  is  not  found  in 
the  original  record,  nor  in  any  part  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  superstitious  Jews  went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  man 
was  mortal  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  but  they 
never  said  that  all  his  actions  were  sin  on  that  account. 
This  is  a  pure  invention  of  modern  days. 

It  is  attempted  to  be  deduced  from  the  account  which 
is  given  of  the  flood.  "  God  saw  that  the  wickedness 
of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagina- 
tion of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continu- 
ally." "  And  God  looked  upon  the  earth,  and  behold 
it  was  corrupt,  for  all  flesh  had  corrupted  his  way." 

With  regard  to  this  representation,  we  remark,  that 
it  is  made  with  respect  to  one  period  remarkable  for  its 
wickedness,  so  as  to  be  miraculously  punished.  Is  it 
fair  to  make  this  exception  the  general  rule,  and  make 


TOTAL  DEPRAVlXr.  15^ 

all  mankind  as  wicked  as  those,  whom  God  declared  to 
be  peculiarly  wicked  ?  Would  it  be  just  in  a  father  to 
say  of  his  son,  that  he  was  totally  corrupt,  because  he 
had  just  done  something  amiss  and  been  punished  for 
it  ?  But  it  is  said,  there  is  a  term  of  positive  universal- 
ity used,  "every  imagination  of  his  heart."  But  go  on 
a  little  further,  and  you  will  learn  how  to  interpret 
terms  of  apparent  universality.  "  All  flesh  had  cor- 
rupted his  way."  But  Noah  and  his  family  had  not. 
"  All  flesh"  then  is  not  strictly  universal.  Why  then 
should  "every  imagination  be?"  If  there  were  some, 
who  had  not  corrupted  themselves,  then  in  spite  of  this 
universality  there  rnight  have  been  some  imaginations 
in  men's  hearts  which  were  not  evil.  Besides,  such 
unmixed  wickedness  as  literal  universality  would  here 
assert,  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  existence  of  so- 
ciety or  of  mankind  at  all.  Sin  is  a  disease  of  the  body 
politic,  which  like  natural  diseases  cannot  go  beyond  a 
certain  point  without  producing  dissolution  and  death. 
And  in  society,  this  point  is  reached  far  short  of  total 
corruption,  and  I  believe,  even  before  the  evil  becomes 
more  in  amount  than  the  good.  A  family  can  live  to- 
gether till  they  arrive  at  a  certain  pitch  of  depravity, 
and  then  they  will  either  exterminate  each  other,  or 
separate.  There  must  be  more  truth  than  falsehood, 
or  all  intercourse  must  cease.  There  must  be  more 
industry  than  idleness,  or  men  would  starve.  There 
must  be  more  conjugal  faithfulness  than  infidelity,  or 
marriages  would  cease.  There  must  be  more  parental 
love  and  care,  than  parental  hatred  and  abandonment, 
or  the  race  would   become  extinct.     A  community  to- 


154  TOTAL   DEPRAVITY.  ^ 

tally  and  thoroughly  depraved,  could  not  exist  a  single 
year. 

Besides,  it  is  here  said,  that  "  all  flesh  had  corrupted 
his  M^ay."  Could  that  be  said  of  beings  totally  depraved 
by  nature  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  race  ?  Must 
there  not  have  been  something  good  to  have  corrupted  ? 
All  then  that  w^e  can  infer  from  this  passage  is,  that 
that  generation  of  men  were  very  wicked.  It  does  not 
assert  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  at  all.  And  what- 
ever inferences  may  be  drawn  from  it  are  as  much 
against  this  doctrine  as  for  it. 

The  declaration  that  all  men  had  corrupted  their 
way,  except  one  family  which  had  remained  pure,  im- 
plies not  total  native  depravity,  but  its  opposite,  that 
they  all  began  existence  innocent  and  pure,  and  might 
have  continued  so,  as  that  one  family  did.  Their  cor- 
ruption was  not  native,  but  induced  by  their  own  vol- 
untary agency,  was  not  a  corruption  of  nature,  but  a 
corruption  oi  practice. 

Another  proof  text  of  this  doctrine  is  taken  from  the 
confession  of  David,  after  those  two  horrid  crimes,  which 
cast  suqh  a  dark  shade  over  his,  otherwise,  so  exalted 
character.  "  Behold,"  he  says,  "  I  was  shapen  in  in- 
iquity, and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  Does 
not  every  one  discover  in  this  exclamation,  the  poetic 
exaggeration  of  deep  and  passionate  grief  ?  Do  we  not 
perceive  the  same  play  of  an  excited  imagination,  which 
elsewhere  declares,  "  Behold  thou  hast  made  my  days 
as  an  handbreadth,  and  mine  age  is  as  nothing  before 
thee  ?"  It  is  evidently  not  the  purpose  of  David  to 
palliate,  but  rather  to  exaggerate  his  crime.     It  is  an 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY.  155 

expression  of  his  great  guilt,  wrung  from  him  by  his 
deep  penitence.  On  the  other  supposition  it  would 
rather  be  offering  an  excuse,  than  which  nothing  could 
be  further  from  his  intention.  The  fact,  that  this  pas- 
sage has  been  drawn  into  the  service,  so  entirely  foreign 
to  the  subject,  having  so  little  relation  to  mankind  at 
large,  is  sufficient  evidence  how  few  arguments  can  be 
brought  from  Scripture  in  favor  of  this  hypothesis. 

Other  passages  have  been  cited  from  the  writings  of 
Paul,  such  as  this.  "  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way  ; 
they  are  together  become  unprofitable ;  there  is  none 
that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one."  But  what  is  Paul  at- 
tempfing  to  prove  ?  Not  anything  with  regard  to  man's 
natural  state,  but  as  he  says  a  few  verses  before :  "  We 
have  proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  be  under  sin," 
that  is,  all  stand  in  need  of  the  Gospel,  because  all  are 
sinful,  not  totally  depraved.  These  passages  are  quoted 
by  Paul  from  David,  and  by  David  they  were  used  con- 
cerning liis  enemies  and  wicked  men  generally.  You 
perceive  then,  that  this  awful  and  revolting  doctrine  of 
total  depravity,  and  the  inability  of  man  to  will  or  to 
do  anything  good  and  acceptable  to  God  entirely  fails 
of  support,  both  from  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  fall 
of  man,  and  from  those  separate  passages,  which  have 
been  alleged  to  prove  it.  It  therefore  falls  to  the  ground. 
And  for  my  own  part,  I  can  scarce  conceive  a  better 
refutation  of  it  than  the  fact  that  men  have  suffered 
themselves  to  be  insulted  with  it  so  often  and  so  long, 
that  they  have  submitted  to  hear  themselves  abused  and 
vilified  by  worms  no  better  than  themselves,  so  patiently 
and  with  so  little  resentment. 


156  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

The  doctrine  of  total  depravity  is  a  mere  hypothesis, 
a  mere  assertion,  which  dishonors   God,  and    destroys 
the  foundations  of  rehgion.     It  degrades  man  and  takes 
away  all  ground  of  just  responsibility.     We  assert  and 
believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  every  ^luman  being,  who 
is  complete,  in   all  his  natural  faculties,  is  in  a  state  of 
probation,  that  he  has  naturally,  as  the  advocates  of  the 
other  system  describe  Adam  to   have   had,  freedom   to 
will  and  to  do  that   which   is  well   pleasing  to  God. 
That  the  only  restraint  which  is  ever  put   upon   man's 
will  to  prevent  him  from  doing  the  will  of  God,  is  that 
of  evil  habit,  which  he  brings  upon  himself  by  his  own 
abuse  of  his  freedom.     We  believe  that  the  infant  comes 
from  the  hand  of  its  Creator  pure   from   moral   stain. 
It  is  innocent,  though  without  personal  merit.     There 
are  none  of  its  powers  and  faculties  which  are  not  ne- 
cessary to  its  well  being,  or  whose  natural   operation  is 
evil.     We  believe  that  God  has  given  to  every  son  and 
daughter  of  Adam  a  law  in  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong, 
which  he  has  implanted  within   them ;  that  they  have 
the  power,  and  moreover  the  consciousness  of  the  pow- 
er to  choose  between  them  ;  and  on  this  sense  of  power 
is  founded  the  jurisdiction,  and  the  retribution  of  con- 
science.    That  every  moral  act  of  every  human   being 
has  an  effect  on  his  whole  future  being,  for  better  or 
worse.     We  believe  that  this  internal  law  has  more  or 
less  light  from  without,  according  to  circumstances,  and 
like  the  other  powers  of  man  it  is  capable  of  more  or 
less  improvement.     In   the  darkness  of  barbarity  and 
heathenism,  it  has  the  least  opportunity  of  improve- 
ment, and  in  a  community  thoroughly  imbued  with  the 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 


157 


light  and  practice  of  Christianity,  the  greatest.  And 
we  believe,  that  in  a  future  world  every  one  will  be 
judged  according  to  his  ciiaracter  and  actions,  compared 
with  his  opportunities. 

Now  we  ask,  which  of  these  methods  of  divine  gov- 
ernment seems  most  to  bear  the  stamp  of  truth  ?  There 
are  four  sources  of  evidence  on  this  subject, — reason, 
conscience,  observation,  and  the  word  of  God.  In  the 
first  place,  which  seems  the  most  reasonable  ?  Does  it 
commend  itself  as  probable  that  God  would  create  this 
world  as  the  first  stage  of  man's  existence,  a  scene  of 
preparation  for  eternity,  and  withhold  the  very  power, 
that  of  willing  and  doing  good,  which  alone  can  render 
this  stage  of  existence  of  any  use  to  him  ?  Is  it  not 
manifestly  inconsistent  to  say  that  God  has  created  this 
as  a  state  of  probation  to  man,  and  places  him  in  it  des- 
titute of  that  very  power  which  makes  him  capable  of 
probation,  that  of  willing  and  choosing  right  as  well  as 
wrong?  According  to  this  theory,  the  character  which 
a  state  of  probation  is  intended  to  give  man  the  oppor^ 
tunity  of  forming  by  his  own  voluntary  actions,  is  already 
formed  and  fixed  by  the  agency  of  another.  His  trial 
is  already  over  before  it  is  begun.  His  character  is  al-. 
ready  fixed  before  he  has  done  a  single  intelligent,  vol- 
untary action.  Shall  God  make  man  for  virtue,  and 
then  withhold  from  him  those  very  powers  which  ren- 
der virtue  and  happiness  possible  and  attainable  ?  The 
tender  care  of  God  for  man  is  manifested  in  ten  thou- 
sand ways,  in  the  bounties  of  nature,  in  the  changes  of 
the  seasons,  in  the  beauty  and  grandeur  he  has  poured 
over  qll  his  works,  in  the  relations  of  society  and  do- 
14 


15S  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

mestic  life,  in  the  power  of  recovery  from  sickness  and 
misfortune.  But  his  happiness  depends  much  more 
upon  his  power  to  do  right.  There  is  an  order  of  na- 
ture, according  to  which  if  he  regulate  his  conduct,  a 
harmony  arises  which  contributes  infinitely  more  to  his 
happiness,  than  all  the  richness  and  variety  of  nature. 
That  course  of  conduct  is  what  the  understanding  per- 
ceives as  right.  Can  we  ever  believe  that  God  has  cre- 
ated in  the  moral  nature  of  man  such  a  repugnance  to 
that  right,  such  an  opposition  to  it,  that  the  soul  never 
chooses  it  till  its  own  nature  is  miraculously  changed  ? 
Such  a  supposition,  while  it  attributes  to  God  the  great- 
est care  of  man  in  little  things,  imputes  to  him  an  entire 
disregard  to  his  higher  interests.  Is  there  any  reason- 
ableness in  supposing  that  God  would  suspend  the  pow- 
er of  millions  of  the  human  race  of  choosing  to  do  right, 
a  circumstance  infinitely  more  important  to  their  well- 
being  than  any  other,  on  a  solitary  act  of  a  remote  an- 
cestor ? 

But  it  is  said  that  God  miraculously  bestows  it  on 
some  ;  or  rather  restores  the  power  to  choose  that  which 
is  good  and  pleasing  to  him,  to  a  few.  We  answer, 
this  only  increases  the  difficulty.  The  first  supposition 
makes  God  infinitely  unjust.  This  adds  the  most  re- 
volting partiality.  It  is  utterly  impossible  from  the  very 
-nature  of  the  case,  that  one  should  merit  his  regard 
more  than  another,  for  it  is  impossible,  previous  to  this 
miraculous  change,  for  any  one  to  will  or  to  do  any- 
thing pleasing  to  God.  The  selection  then  must  be 
perfectly  arbitrary.  Would  not  that  human  parent  be 
rendered  infamous  who  should  load  a  part  of  his  chil- 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY.  159 

dren  with  boundless  favors,  and  condemn  the  rest  to 
want,  and  vice,  and  misery,  during  their  whole  hves? 

But  it  may  be  asked,  is  it  not  according  to  the  anal- 
ogy of  the  present  life  ?  We  answer,  no.  Neither  vir- 
tue nor  happiness  is  the  exclusive  privilege  of  any  out- 
ward condition.  Besides,  the  inequalities  of  this  state 
of  trial  may  be  made  up  in  a  state  of  retribution. 
Whereas,  the  distinction  between  having  and  not  hav- 
ing the  power  of  doing  right  and  what  is  acceptable  to 
God,  is  finai  and  eternal.  Its  effects  commence  at 
once,  and  are  in  their  own  nature  endless  and  hope- 
less. To  deny  th«  justice  and  impartiality  of  the  Deity, 
is  to  deny  his  moral  perfections.  To  deny  his  moraJ 
perfections,  overthrows  all  religion,  and  rendering  utter- 
ly uncertain  the  principles  of  the  Divine  Government, 
makes  all  attention  to  the  subject  a  mere  waste  of  time. 
We  simply  ask  you,  is  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity 
reasonable  ? 

Our  next  source  of  evidence  is  consciousness,  tlie 
moral  nature  of  man.  This  is  a  source  of  evidence  of 
which  every  one  can  judge  by  examining  his  own  mind 
and  consulting  his  past  experience.  What  is  the  moral 
nature  of  man  ?  It  is  the  faculty  which  the  rational 
soul  possesses,  not  possessed  by  the  brutes,  of  perceiv- 
ing right  and  wrong,  good  and  evil,  and  the  feeling,  the 
consciousness  of  power  to  choose  between  them.  On 
the  conviction  and  consciousness  of  possessing  these 
two  powers  of  perceiving  and  choosing,  is  founded  a 
third  attribute,  a  sense  of  merit,  worth  and  desert ;  or 
of  guilt,  blame  and  self-reproach.  I  appeal  to  all  who 
hear  me,  to  say  if  they  do  not  recognize  in  themselves 


160  TOTAL  DEPKAVITir. 

all  these  powers  and  faculties,  and  an  exercise  of  them 
such  as  I  have  described.  I  now  ask  if  you  ever  felt 
such  an  impotence  of  will  toward  that  which  your  under- 
standing perceived  to  be  right  that  it  was  impossible  for 
you  to  choose  it  ?  If  you  had  felt  thus  utterly  disabled, 
as  much  so  as  a  man  in  a  palsy  is  to  walk,  would  your 
conscience  afterwards  reproach  you  for  not  doing  what 
at  the  time  you  felt  it  to  be  impossible  for  you  to  do? 
Are  the  agonies  of  remorse  at  all  mitigated  by  any  con- 
sciousness of  inability  to  do  what  we  knew  was  right  ? 
According  to  this  system,  the  inability  existed,  nay,  was 
absolutely  invincible.  Conscience  then  is  a  stupendous 
lie.  Remorse  is  a  wanton,  unjust,  unmerited  cruelty. 
The  whole  moral  nature  of  man  is  one  vast  system  qf 
barbarous  deception.  Man  is  made  wretched  by  a 
feeling  of  liberty  which  he  does  not  possess.  He  is 
just  as  miserable  as  if  the  cause  of  his  wrong  doing  were 
in  himself,  whereas  in  fact  it  was  in  Adam  thousands 
of  years  ago.  But  who  is  the  author  of  this  moral  na- 
ture ?  God.  By  whose  arrangement  is  it  that  we  have 
this  consciousness  of  power  and  feeling  of  remorse  ? 
God's.  Then  it  follows  that  millions  of  the  human  race 
are  undergoing  the  torments  of  remorse,  for  that  for 
which  they  are  not  at  all  to  blame,  by  the  ordination  of 
God.  Does  not  every  principle  of  reason  and  every 
sentiment  of  piety  revolt  from  such  a  supposition  ? 

Is  it  not  evident  then,  that  the  moral  nature  of  man 
is  constructed  upon  the  supposition  that  he  is  in  that 
state  by  nature,  in  which  the  Westminster  divines  have 
described  Adam  as  having  been  created,  with  freedom 
and  power  to  will  and  to  do  that  which   is  good,  and 


TOTAL   DEPRAVITY.  161 

well  pleasing  to  God  ?  Which  then  shall  we  believe, 
our  own  moral  nature,  and  God  speaking  through  it,  or 
shall  we  believe  arbitrary  systems  of  visionary  men, 
founded  on  a  few  insulated  and  doubtful  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture? 

The  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  in  the  sense  of  ina- 
bility to  choose  right  in  preference  to  wrong,  is  contra- 
dicted by  consciousness,  the  highest  source  of  evidence 
we  possess.  However  often  then  it  may  be  asserted, 
it  is  impossible  that  it  should  ever  be  understandingly 
believed. 

The  third  source  of  evidence  which  I  mentioned,  is 
observation  of  the  sentiments  and  conduct  of  mankind, 
and  the  course  of  Divine  Providence.  We  now  ask,  if 
either  of  these  give  any  countenance  to  the  dogma,  that 
man  has  not  the  power  to  will  and  to  do  any  good  ? 

We  will  first  examine  the  sentiments  of  mankind  with 
regard  to  each  other.  They  are  constantly  passing 
judgment  upon  each  other's  characters  and  actions. 
They  are  continually  praising  one  kind  of  actions,  which 
they  denominate  good,  and  blaming  another  class  of 
actions  which  they  denominate  bad.  This  is  universal 
all  over  the  world.  It  extends  to  every  human  being, 
and  to  every  action,  which  has  a  moral  character.  How 
happens  it  that  there  are  good  actions  and  good  men 
all  over  the  world,  if  man  is  incapable  of  willing  or  do- 
ing anything  that  is  good  ?  How  do  men  perform  that 
which  this  theory  supposes  them  incapable  of  perform- 
ing ?  Men  certainly  are  not  apt  to  judge  too  charita- 
bly of  each  other ;  and  according  to  this  theory,  being 
disabled  from  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil, 
14* 


162  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

they  must  be  disposed  to  harsh,  unjust,  and  uncharita- 
ble judging,  among  other  sins ;  how  happens  it,  that 
men  in  judging  of  each  other  admit  of  good  as  well  as 
bad  actions,  good  as  well  as  bad  men  ?  They  not  only 
judge  so,  but  they  reward,  by  all  means  in  their  power, 
those  actions  and  characters,  which  they  judge  to  be 
good?  If  this  theory  be  true,  then  they  labor  under  a 
total  mistake.  Everything  is  bad  which  is  done  by 
every  human  being,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few, 
and  their  good  deeds  are  not  their  own,  in  any  sense 
meriting  a  reward. 

What  is  the  supposition  upon  which  all  human  laws 
are  founded,  and  the  rewards  and  punishments  which 
are  thereby  dealt  out  to  mankind  ?  Upon  no  other 
certainly,  than  that  men  are  free  to  choose  good  as  well 
as  evil.  If  men  are  incapable  of  doing  good,  and  can 
do  nothing  but  evil,  then  human  laws  are  unjust,  and 
founded  on  a  false  supposition.  But  are  not  human 
sentiments  and  feelings,  human  laws  and  institutions, 
the  ordinances  of  God  ;  and  are  not  they  the  means  he 
uses  to  exercise  his  moral  government ;  are  they  not 
indeed  a  part  of  that  government  ?  Is  it  not  exercised 
without  regard  to  the  giving  or  withholding  any  mirac- 
ulous power,  is  it  not  exercised  over  man  in  his  natural 
state?  But  this  is  all  wrong  and  unjust,  if  man  be  not 
free  to  choose  good  as  well  as  evil. 

The  languages  of  mankind  are  the  best  index  both 
of  their  sentiments  and  of  what  really  exists.  Men  al- 
ways find  words  to  express  what  they  think,  and  feel, 
and  discover.  Men  in  all  ages  and  nations  have  felt 
themselves  to  be  free,  therefore  they  have  had  words  to 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY.  163 

express  that  freedom.  They  have  felt  approbation  and 
disapprobation,  both  for  their  own  deeds  and  those  of 
others.  Some  things  they  have  called  virtue,  and  other 
things  they  have  called  vice.  If  there  were  no  &uch 
thing  as  virtue,  where  could  such  a  word  come  from? 
But  it  is  found  in  all  languages.  Is  it  not  unaccounta- 
ble that  all  nations  should  have  made  the  same  mistake, 
and  invented  a  word  for  that  which  does  not  exist  ? 
The  best  ethical  definition  of  virtue  which  has  ever 
been  given,  was  made  by  a  heathen  philosopher  more 
than  two  thousand  years  ago.  He  said  it  was  "the 
habit  of  that  which  is  right."  Now  how  could  he  de- 
fine so  accurately  that,  which  not  only  he  had  never 
seen,  but  had  never  existed? 

We  have  now  finished  this  part  of  the  discussion, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  quibbles  upon  words,  with 
which  questions  of  this  kind  are  always  infested.  It 
may  be  said,  that  what  is  called  virtue  among  men  is 
not  good  nor  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God.  If  you 
please  to  limit  and  define  that,  which  is  good  and  ac- 
ceptable to  God,  to  be  what  is  done  by  certain  persons 
in  certain  circumstances,  and  having  passed  through 
certain  undefinable  supernatural  changes,  then  every 
petty  sect  on  earth,  may  limit  what  is  pleasing  to  God 
to  their  own  little  circle.  So  might  a  literary  sectarian 
and  fanatic  define  intellect  to  be  that  mental  power, 
which  was  possessed  by  the  inhabitants  of  a  certain 
street  of  a  particular  city,  and  say,  that  all  the  intellect 
of  the  rest  of  the  world  was  only  called  intellect,  but 
was  not  really  such. 

How  then  shall  we  know  what  is  good  and  accepta- 


164  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

ble  to  God  ?  I  will  tell  you  in  a  few  words.  Not  from 
the  definitions  of  cold-blooded  metaphysicians,  who 
would  cut  the  world  up  to  make  it  correspond  to  the 
lines  and  angles  of  their  own  theories,  and  consign  four- 
fifths  of  the  human  race  to  endless  misery,  merely  to 
make  out  a  favorite  hypothesis.  That  is  good  and  ac- 
ceptable to  God,  which  the  understanding  perceives  to 
be  right,  whichconscience  approves,  which  the  moral 
sentiments  of  mankind  sanction,  and  which  the  provi- 
dence of  God  rewards.  That  is  good  and  acceptable 
to  God,  which  any  moral  agent  does  in  obedience  to 
the  highest  law  which  God  has  given  him,  be  that  law 
that  sense  of  right  and  wrong  which  God  has  given  to 
all,  or  education,  the  moral  sentiments  of  the  commu- 
nity, or  revelation. 

Industry  is  good  and  acceptable  to  God.  How  do 
we  know  this  ?  Because  the  understanding  perceives 
it  to  be  right,  conscience  approves  it,  the  moral  senti- 
ments of  mankind  sanction  it,  and  the  providence  of 
God  rewards  it.  Truth  is  good  and  acceptable  to  God. 
How  do  we  know  this  ?  Because  the  understanding 
perceives  it  to  be  right,  the  conscience  approves  it,  the 
moral  sentiments  of  mankind  sanction  it,  and  the  prov- 
idence of  God  rewards  it.  Repentance  is  good  and 
acceptable  to  God.  How  do  we  know  this  ?  Because 
the  understanding  perceives  it  to  be  right,  the  con- 
science approves  it,  the  moral  sentiments  of  mankind 
sanction  it,  and  the  providence  of  God  rewards  it. 

"  But  you  are  disparaging  the  gospel,"  I  hear  one 
exclaim.  "  You  are  undervaluing  the  atonement,  and 
the  necessity  of  the  imputed   righteousness  of  Christ," 


I 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY.  165 

cries  another.  "  You  are  preaching  mere  morality,  and 
making  it  possible  that  the  heatlien  may  be  saved,' 
says  a  third.  I  answer  that  I  am  vindicating  the  char- 
acter of  God  from  the  most  shocking  imputations.  I 
am  vindicating  him  from  the  aspersion  of  being  a  Jew- 
ish, narrow,  sectarian  God,  and  making  him,  as  he  is, 
the  God,  and  Father,  and  moral  Governor  of  all  man- 
kind. I  am  making  him  just  such  a  God  as  he  is  rep- 
resented to  be  in  our  text.  "  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation,  he 
that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accept- 
ed with  him." 

But  it  is  said,  you  make  men  to  get  to  heaven  by 
their  own  merits.  I  answer,  it  is  not  true.  It  must  be 
through  the  mercy  of  God,  for  all  have  sinned  and  come 
short.  But  I  say  likewise,  what  the  Scriptures  say, 
that  every  man  shall  be  judged  according  to  the  deeds 
done  in  the  body. 

If  it  be  meant  that  man  in  his  natural  state  can  do 
nothing  good  and  acceptable  to  God  in  the  sense  of 
doing  nothing  perfectly  and  absolutely  good,  then  I 
assent  to  it.  But  I  say  also,  that  this  is  equally  true 
of  the  most  perfect  of  the  saints  in  light.  There  is 
some  mixture  of  imperfection  in  the  best  deeds  of  the 
best.  There  is  every  variety  of  motive,  and  conse- 
quently of  merit,  in  the  virtuous  acts  of  accountable 
beings,  from  the  lowest,  abject  fear,  to  the  most  exalt- 
ed, spontaneous  preference  for  that  which  is  good  and 
delight  in  doing  it. 

The  last  appeal  we  shall  make  to  observation  is  this, 
and  it  seems  to  be  decisive  of  the  whole  question.     Is 


166  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

there  in  the  mind  of  man  a  preference  of  wrong  over 
right,  of  evil  over  good,  when  other  things  are  all  equal  ? 
I  say  nothing  of  the  relative  amount  of  good  or  bad  ac- 
tions in  the  world,  I  merely  ask  whether,  when  a  man 
thinks  he  can  attain  the  same  amount  of  pleasure,  or 
whatever  else  he  seeks,  by  either  a  bad  or  a  good  ac- 
tion, he  uniformly  chooses  the  bad  ?  If  he  chooses 
evil  for  its  own  sake,  always  and  in  all  circumstances, 
then  he  is  totally  depraved.  Is  the  prevailing  charac- 
ter of  the  species  pure  rpalignity,  then  man  is  averse  to 
all  good,  and  only  inclined  to  all  evil.  To  me  this 
seems  a  description  of  a  devil  and  not  of  a  man,  even 
the  worst.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  pleasure  to  any  man 
to  do  violence  to  his  moral  sense.  I  believe  that  men 
naturally  love  to  see  others  do  what  is  right  and  just, 
and  take  pleasure  in  doing  it  themselves.  There  is  in 
man  a  natural  love  for  what  is  just  and  right,  which  is 
gratified  by  doing  right,  precisely  as  any  of  the  appe- 
tites or  passions  is  gratified  by  enjoying  its  appropriate 
object.  How  then,  it  may  be  asked,  does  it  happen 
that  there  is  such  a  vast  amount  of  sin  in  the  world  ? 
How  happens  it  that  man  sins  at  all  ?  We  answer,  it 
is  because  the  desires  and  passions  are  blind,  have  no 
discernment  of  morality  or  immorality  in  their  objects. 
That  which  gives  them  pleasure  seems  to  them  good, 
without  regard  to  its  moral  character.  Sinful  actions 
then  are  done,  not  because  they  are  sin,  but  because 
they  are  pleasure — not  from  any  love  to  sin  as  sin,  nor 
from  any  desire  to  injure  others,  or  to  defy  God,  but 
from  an  eager  though  mistaken  desire  of  happiness. 
Conscience,  or  the  moral  sense,  that  is,  the   perception 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY.  167 

of  right  and  the  desire  to  do  it,  is  given  us  to  regulate 
the  action  of  the  desires  and  passions,  to  direct  them  to 
proper,  and  call  theni  off  from  improper  objects.  And 
the  trial  of  man  is  which  he  shall  obey.  Sometimes 
one  gets  the  mastery  and  sometimes  the  other.  This, 
if  I  mistake  not,  is  the  account  which  Paul  gives  of 
himself,  even  after  his  conversion.  "  For  I  delight  in 
the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man.  But  I  see  an- 
other law  in  my  members  warring  against  the  law  of 
my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of 
sin,  which  is  in  my  members." 

We  now  come  to  the  fourth  and  last  source  of  evi- 
dence that  man  has  power  to  do  that  which  is  good 
and  acceptable  to  God,  and  that  all  men  are  in  a  state 
of  moral  probation, — the  sacred  Scriptures. 

All  the  commands  of  God  are  so  many  evidences 
of  man's  power  to  will  and  to  do  what  is  pleasing  to 
him.  For  if  man  have  not  this  power,  one  of  these 
consequences  will  follow,  either  that  God  commands 
what  man  has  not  the  power  to  perform,  which  ren- 
ders the  command  nugatory,  vain,  and  a  cruel  mockery 
of  man's  imbecility,  or  that  he  commands  that  which, 
when  performed,  is  not  good  and  acceptable  to  him. 

All  the  promises  of  God  are  evidences  that  man  has 
the  power  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  good  and  ac- 
ceptable to  God.  "  The  righteousness  of  the  righteous 
shall  be  upon  him."  But  according  to  this  theory  man 
is  incapable  of  having  any  righteousness,  or  doing  any- 
thing that  is  right.  Is  it  said  that  man's  righteousness 
is  so  imperfect  that  it  is  no  righteousness  at  all  ?  Then 
it  will   follow  that  God   has  promised   to  accept  that 


168  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

which  is  unacceptable,  and  calls  that  righteousness 
which  is  not  righteousness,  a  direct  and  plain  contra- 
diction in  terms. 

All  the  threatenings  of  God's  word  are  so  many  evi- 
dences of  man's  power  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is 
good  and  well  pleasing  to  God.  If  all  man's  doings 
must  of  necessity  be  evil  and  sinful,  from  the  very  con- 
stitution which  God  has  given  him,  can  the  Deity  be 
represented  in  a  more  unworthy  light,  than  as  threat- 
ening man  for  doing  that  which  he  cannot  avoid  doing? 
Is  it  not  adding  insult  to  injury,  first  to  bind  man  in 
adamantine  chains,  and  then  threaten  him  with  whips 
and  scorpions,  because  he  does  not  rise  up  and   walk  ? 

Besides,  the  Scriptures  expressly  inform  us  that, 
"  Whatsoever  good  thing  any  man  doeth,  the  same 
shall  he  receive  of  the  Lord."  He  who  had  received 
and  improved  the  two  talents  was  welcomed,  inasmuch 
as  he  had  been  faithful  over  a  few  things,  into  the  joy 
of  his  Lord.  "  Know  ye  not,  that  to  whom  ye  yield 
yourselves  servants  to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are  to  whom 
ye  obey,  whether  of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience 
unto  righteousness  ?"  "  He  that  doeth  righteousness  is 
righteous."  "  God  who  will  render  unto  every  man 
according  to  his  deeds  ;  to  them,  who  by  patient  con- 
tinuance in  well  doing,  seek  for  glory,  and  honor,  and 
immortality,  eternal  life.  But  unto  them  that  are  con- 
tentious, and  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but  obey  unright- 
eousness, indignation  and  wrath,  tribulation  and  an- 
guish, upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil,  of  the 
Jew  first,  and  also  of  the  Gentile.  But  glory,  honor, 
and  peace,  to  every  man    that   worketh   good  ;  to   the 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY.  169 

Jew  first,  a7id  also  to  the  Gentile.     For  there  is  no 
respect  of  persons  with  God." 

"  For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do 
by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these  having 
not  the  law  are  a  law  to  themselves ;  which  show  the 
work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts  ;  their  con- 
science also  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  in  the 
meanwhile  accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another." 
"  Many,"  said  our  Saviour,  seeing  the  faith  of  a  heathen 
centurion,  "  shall  come  from  the  north,  and  from  the 
south,  and  from  the  east,  and  from  the  west,  and  sit 
down  with  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob,  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  "  Of  a  truth,  I  perceive  that^  God  is 
no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation,  he  that 
feareth  him  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with 
him." 

You  perceive  then  upon  what  venerable  heads  the 
curse  of  the  authors  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England  must  rest,  even  those  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  for  denying  total  depravity,  and  asserting 
that  every  man  shall  be  judged  according  to.  that  law 
which  God  has  given  him,  and  be  saved,  receive  of 
God  "  eternal  life"  even  though  a  "  Gentile,"  a  heathen, 
if  he  have  conformed  his  life  to  its  requisitions,  if  he 
have,  "  by  patient  continuance  in  well  doing,  sought  for 
glory,  honor  and  immortality." 

You    have   now   before    you   the   evidence   for   and 
against  the  doctrine  of  Total  Depravity.     I  leave  it  in 
your  hands  to  judge,  each   one   for   himself,  whether  it 
be  probable  or  improbable,  true  or  false. 
15 


LECTURE   VII. 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

ROMANS,  VIII.  28,  29,  30. 
"  And  AVE  KNOW  that  All  things  work  together  for  good  to 

THEM  THAT  LOVE  GOD,  TO  THEM  WHO  ARE  THE  CALLED  ACCORDING 
TO  HIS  PURPOSE.  FOR  WHOM  HE  DID  FOREKNOW,  HE  ALSO  DID 
PREDESTINATE  TO  BE  CONFORMED  TO  THE  IMAGE  OF  HIS  SON,  THAT 
HE  MIGHT  BE  THE  FIRST  BORN  AMONG  MANY  BRETHREN.  MORE- 
OVER, WHOM  HE  DID  PREDESTINATE,  THEM  HE  ALSO  CALLED  ;  AND 
WHOM  HE  CALLED,  THEM  HE  ALSO  JUSTIFIED  ;  AND  AVHOM,  HE  JUS- 
TIFIED, THEM  HE  ALSO  GLORIFIED." 

The  doctrine  of  predestination,  or  election  and  rep- 
robation is  thus  declared  in  the  Seventeenth  Article  of 
the  creed  of  the  Church  of  England.  "  Predestination 
to  life  is  the  everlasting  purpose  of  God,  whereby  (be- 
fore the  foundations  of  the  world  were  laid)  he  hath 
constantly  decreed  by  his  counsel,  secret  to  us,  to  de- 
liver from  curse  and  damnation,  those  whom  he  hath 
chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring  them  by 
Christ  to  everlasting  salvation,  as  vessels  made  to  hon- 
or. Wherefore  they,  which  he  endued  with  so  excel- 
lent a  benefit  of  God,  he  called  according  to  God's  pur- 
pose by  his  Spirit,  working  in  due  season  ;  they  through 
grace  obey  the  calling :  they  be  justified  freely :  they 
be  made  sons  of  God  by  adoption  :  they  be  made  like 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  171 

the  image  of  his  only  begotten  son  Jesus  Christ :  they 
walk  religiously  in  good  works  ;  and  at  length  by  God's 
mercy  they  attain  to  everlasting  felicity. 

"  As  the  godly  consideration  of  predestination  and 
our  election  in  Christ,  is  full  of  sweet,  pleasant,  and 
unspeakable  comfort  to  godly  persons,  and  such  as  feel 
in  themselves  the  working  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  mor- 
tifying the  works*of  the  flesh  and  their  earthly  mem- 
bers, and  drawing  up  their  mind  to  high  and  heavenly 
things,  as  well  because  it  doth  greatly  establish  and 
confirm  their  faith  of  eternal  salvation  to  be  en- 
joyed through  Christ,  as  because  it  doth  fervently  kin- 
dle their  love  towards  God  ;  so,  for  curious  and  carnal 
persons  lacking  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  to  have  continually 
before  their  eyes  the  sentence  of  God's  predestination, 
is  a  most  dangerous  downfall,  whereby  the  Devil  doth 
thrust  them  either  into  desperation,  or  into  wretched- 
ness of  most  unclean  living,  no  less  perilous  than  des- 
peration." 

The  Westminster  Confession  is  somewhat  more  bold 
and  unscrupulous  in  its  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
election,  and  shrinks  not  likewise  from  its  counterpart 
and  consequence,  the  doctrine  of  reprobation.  "  By 
the  decree  of  God  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  and  angels  nre  predestinated  to  everlasting 
life,  and  others  fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death. 
These  angels  and  men  thus  predestinated  and  fore-or- 
dained are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed  ; 
and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite,  that  it  can- 
not be  either  increased  or  diminished.  Those  of  man- 
kind that  are  predestinated   unto  life,  God,  before  the 


172  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eter- 
nal and  immutable  purpose,  and  the  secret  counsel  and 
good  pleasure  of  his  will,  hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto 
everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and  love, 
without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  perse- 
verance in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the 
creature,  as  conditions  or  causes  moving  him  thereto ; 
and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  ^ace.  The  rest 
of  mankind,  God  was  pleased  according  to  the  un- 
searchable counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  extend- 
eth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory 
of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by, 
and  to  ordain  them  to  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise 
of  his  glorious  justice." 

I  presume  to  say,  there  is  not  one  who  has  listened 
to  this  statement,  every  feeling  of  whose  moral  nature 
has  not  been  shocked,  and  pained,  and  outraged  by  this 
most  revolting  doctrine.  No  words  can  describe  the 
loathing  I  feel,  for  a  dogma  so  slanderous  to  the  moral 
character  and  government  of  God.  The  ancient  doc- 
trine of  fate  was  mild  and  amiable  when  compared  to 
it.  And  they,  who  endeavor  to  fasten  it  upon  the  Bi- 
ble, are  endeavoring  to  hang  a  mill-stone  on  the  whole 
cause  of  religion. 

What  I  wish  you  to  notice  at  the  very  commence- 
ment of  the  discussion,  is  the  wide  difference  there  is 
between  the  apostle's  doctrine  of  election,  and  that  we 
have  read  from  the  creeds  of  men,  you  will  observe, 
that  the  creeds  put  many  things  into  it,  which  the  apos- 
tle leaves  out,  and  thus  change  the  complexion  of  the 
whole  doctrine.     The  creeds  connect  with  it  the  dog- 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  173 

ma  of  the  fall  of  man,  his  being  born  under  the  wrath 
and  curse  of  God,  in  the  state  of  damnation  by  nature, 
entirely  disabled  from  doing  the  will  of  God,  and,  with- 
out miraculous  aid,  inevitably  doomed  to  eternal  mis- 
ery, being  without  freedom  of  the  will  to  choose  be- 
tween good  and  evil ;  as  having  no  power,  no  opportu- 
nity of  salvation.  Of  all  this,  the  apostle's  doctrine  of 
election  is  profoundly  silent.  Not  a  hint  does  he  drop 
of  man's  being  by  nature  in  a  state  of  inevitable  dam- 
nation, or  that  he  is  not  free  to  choose  between  good 
and  evil.  The  creeds  connect  it  with  the  dogma  of 
miraculous,  irresistible  spiritual  influences,  whereby, 
not  only  power  to  choose  good,  not  possessed  before, 
is  conferred,  but  the  volition  to  choose  good  is  abso- 
lutely produced  ;  thereby  making  any  reward  or  good 
consequences,  which  follow  this  miraculously  produced 
volition  and  choice,  as  arbitrary  and  undeserved,  as  the 
privations  and  sufferings  of  the  non-elect  are  unmerited. 
The  apostle  asserts  no  such  thing.  He  says  not  one 
word  of  the  conversion  to  Christianity  of  those  whom 
he  addresses  as  elected,  by  any  supernatural  influence 
bestowed  on  those  individuals,  and  withheld  from  others 
who  heard  the  Gospel  at  the  same  time. 

Now  to  my  mind,  the  creeds,  by  adding  these  other 
dogmas,  man's  inability,  and  his  being  necessarily  and 
naturally  in  a  state  of  damnation,  and  his  being  convert- 
ed by  irresistible  power,  have  entirely  changed  the  doc- 
trine of  election,  as  stated  by  Paul,  and  make  it  another 
and  a  new  doctrine  altogether.  What  then  does  Paul 
assert  ?  What  is  he  treating  of  in  this  chapter,  and  in 
this  epistle  ?  Certainly  not  of  personal  election.  He 
15* 


174  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

is  speaking  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  by  God,  and 
the  adoption  of  Christians,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  to 
be  his  chosen,  that  is,  his  elected  people.  He  tells 
Christians  that  they  are  the  chosen  people  of  God,  to 
whom  he  had  sent  the  Gospel.  This  he  considers  to 
be  a  great  privilege  and  blessing,  as  it  was  the  design 
of  God  through  the  Gospel  to  make  them  holy  and 
happy.  "And,"  says  he,  "you  ought  to  take  comfort 
from  these  considerations  even  in  your  afflictions,  and 
not  sink  under  them,  for  to  true  Christians  they  are  the 
means  of  promoting  the  very  purpose  for  which  they 
are  called  to  be  Christians.  Holiness  and  sanctification 
are  the  ends  aimed  at  both  by  giving  you  the  Gospel, 
and  sending  you  afflictions.  It  is  no  token  of  God's 
displeasure,  nor  ought  it  to  discourage  you.  For  why 
did  God  determine  in  his  providence  that  you  should 
have  the  Gospel  preached  to  you  ?"  That  to  "  fore- 
know" means  the  determination  of  God  that  the  Gos- 
pel shall  be  preached  to  a  people,  you  may  learn  to 
demonstration  in  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  chapter 
of  this  Epistle.  Speaking  of  the  Jews,  who  were  about 
to  be  rejected  and  destroyed,  he  says :  "  Hath  God 
cast  away  his  people  ?  God  forbid.  For  I  also  am  an 
Israelite.  God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  which  he 
foreknew,"  that  is,  the  Christian  community  to  whom 
through  the  Gospel  he  was  to  make  himself  known,  and 
whom  he  thus  should  take  into  a  peculiar  relation  to 
himself.  As  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not  person- 
al, nor  had  immediate  respect  to  their  eternal  condition, 
so  neither  had  the  reception  of  the  Christians  in  their 
place  respect  immediately  to  their  personal  salvation. 


ELECTION  AND  KEPROBATION.  175 

As  there  iniglit  be  some  or  many  Jews  after  they  were 
rejected  as  a  nation,  who  might  be  saved  personally,  so 
there  might  be  among  those  who  were  elected,  that  is 
the  Christian  community  which  he  look  in  their  stead, 
some,  or  many  persons  who  might  not  be  personally 
saved.  God,  you  perceive,  foreknew  the  Christians  as 
a  people,  not  as  individuals,  just  as  he  rejected  the  Jews, 
not  as  individuals  but  as  a  nation.  Taking  this  sense 
of  "  foreknow,"  which  the  apostle  has  given  himself  as 
the  true  sense,  the  meaning  of  the  whole  passage  will 
be  this.  "  Take  courage  under  your  sufferings,  for 
they  shall  promote  your  spiritual  good.  They  indeed 
coincide  with  the  very  purpose  of  the  Gospel.  For 
what  was  the  design  of  God  in  determining  to  give  you 
the  Gospel  ?  It  was  with  the  determination  or  the  de- 
sign that  you  should  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his 
Son,  that  is,  that  you  should  be  holy  and  virtuous,  if 
you  improve  your  privileges.  Whom  he  thus  designed 
to  be  good  and  holy  he  called,  that  is,  so  ordered  in  his 
providence  that  the  Gospel  should  be  preached  to  them, 
and  the  overtures  of  the  Gospel  made  to  them.  And 
those  whom  he  called  he  justified,  or  more  literally  made 
righteous."  And  this  clause,  permit  me  to  remark, 
opens  the  cause  of  all  the  difficulty  that  has  ever  been 
made  from  this  passage.  All  the  trouble  and  dispute 
tb  which  this  portion  of  Scripture  has  given  rise,  has 
sprung  from  straining  to  the  letter  of  logical  exactness, 
words  which  were  written  loosely  and  in  popular  lan- 
guage. "  Those  whom  he  called  he  justified  or  made 
righteous."  Now  this  was  literally  not  a  fact.  All 
were  called,  in  a  literal  sense,  to  whom  the  Gospel  was 


176  ELECTION  AN1>  REPROBATION. 

preached.  But  were  all  who  heard  the  Gospel  justified 
and  made  righteous  ?  By  no  means.  Some  rejected 
it,  and  received  no  benefit  from  it.  It  evidently  means, 
some  of  them,  or  many  of  them,  who  were  called  were 
justified,  that  is,  all  who  chose  to  obey.  If  all  who 
were  called  were  not  justified,  then  it  follows  that  all 
who  were  foreknown  were  not  justified.  Where  then 
is  personal  election  ?  For  this  is  the  very  thing  on 
which  the  whole  question  turns.  If  the  identical  per- 
sons are  not  meant  in  each  step,  if  those  vvlio  were  jus- 
tified did  not  embrace  all  who  were  called,  then  it  will 
follow  that  the  predetermination  extended  no  further 
than  calling.  The  number  predestinated,  does  not  cor- 
respond to  the  number  actually  justified  or  made  holy. 
Then  it  follows  that  the  justified,  though  they  belong  to 
the  called,  do  not  embrace  them  all.  All  the  predesti- 
nation there  is  then,  goes  no  further  than  we  before 
found  it  from  other  reasons,  to  the  enjoyment  of  the 
spiritual  privileges  of  the  Gospel,  the  means  of  salvation 
which  it  aflfords.  This  inaccuracy  of  language,  this 
speaking  of  all  who  were  called  as  having  obeyed,  when 
in  fact  but  a  part  did,  this  speaking,  as  if  complying 
with  the  call  were  the  necessary  and  invariable  result 
of  being  called,  shows  us  that  the  language  is  popular, 
and  loose,  and  should  put  us  on  our  guard  against  build- 
ing important  doctrines  on  it  as  if  it  were  a  cautious, 
logical  and  intended  statement  of  a  particular  truth. 
The  advocates  therefore  of'the  doctrine  of  unconditional 
election  have  attempted  to  cover  up  this  weak  part  of 
the  argument  by  making  that  definite  and  particular* 
which   the  apostle  has  left  indefinite  and  general,  and 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  177 

have  supplied  a  word  here,  which  is  not  found  nor  in- 
timated in  the  original  text.  ■  Tiiey  put  in  the  word  ef- 
fectual, which  alters  the  whole  complexion  of  the  pas- 
sage. All  are  justified  who  are  effectually  called.  Now 
what  right  have  they  to  interpolate  a  word  in  this  man- 
ner, and  thus  make  the  apostle  assert  a  doctrine  which 
his  own  words  do  not  assert,  and  which  probably  never 
came  into  his  mind  ?  As  it  stands,  without  this  word, 
effectual,  it  does  not  express  the  doctrine  of  personal 
election,  because  if  we  interpret  language  by  facts,  all 
were  not  justified  who  were  called,  that  is  to  whom  the 
Gospel  was  preached,  it  will  follow  that  though  all  were 
called  who  were  foreknown  or  predetermined  to  be,  yet 
all  were  not  justified  who  were  called,  and  so  fore-ordi- 
nation in  this  sense  will  not  embrace  the  same  persons 
as  justification,  and  therefore  personal  election  falls  to 
the  ground.  To  remedy  this,  they  put  a  ffstriction 
where  the  apostle  has  put  none,  and  say  that  calHng 
does  not  mean  calling  unless  it  be  eflfectual  calling.  It 
is  unaccountable  to  see  what  liberties  men  will  take 
with  the  Scriptures  in  order  to  sustain  a  favorite  hypoth- 
esis. 

I  now  return  to  the  apostle's  argument.  "  Those 
whom  he  justified  he  glorified."  Fear  not,  says  he,  in 
your  troubles,  they  shall  promote  that  very  spiritual  ben- 
efit which  the  dealings  of  God  with  you  as  Christians 
are  intended  to  produce  and  secure.  If  God  predeter- 
mined to  send  the  Gospel  to  you,  it  was  with  the  de- 
sign that  you  should  be  conformed  to  the  moral  image 
of  his  son.  In  pursuance  of  this  design  he  actually  sent 
the  Gospel  to  be  preached  among  you.     The  effect  of 


178  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

that  is,  to  make  those  who  are  called,  that  is  of  course 
as  many  as  choose  to  accept,  righteous,  good,  holy,  and 
prepared  for  glory.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  apostle 
to  assert  the  doctrine  of  personal  election.  Tt  is  entire- 
ly foreign  to  the  subject  on  which  he  is  treating.  His 
design  is  to  show  the  subordination  and  subserviency 
of  each  step  in  God's  dealings  with  them  as  Christians 
to  the  great  end  and  result  of  holiness  and  glory.  The 
certainty  of  any  individual's  attaining  this  result,  is  no 
where  expressed  or  implied,  for  it  is  not  even  hinted  at 
in  the  whole  discourse.  This  would  depend  on  each 
individual's  own  free  and  voluntary  choice.  It  is  not 
to  declare  that  any  particular  individual  would  infallibly 
do  this,  but  merely  God  made  such  arrangements  in  his 
providence  that  he  might.  It  was  his  design  in  the 
Gospel  dispensation  that  these  successive  processes 
should  lib  gone  through  by  those  who  enjoy  it.  For  he 
adds  immediately  after,  "  He  that  spared  not  his  own 
Son,  but  freely  gave  him  up  for  us  all,  shall  he  not  with 
him  freely  give  us  all  things  ?"  That  is,  shall  he  not 
make  all  things,  that  is  all  outward  things,  work  to- 
gether for  our  good,  even  our  afflictions,  since  he  has 
given  his  Son  to  suflfer  so  much  on  our  account  ?  Noth- 
ing shall  be  wanting  on  his  part,  provided,  as  is  always 
understood  in  Scripture,  we  are  faithful  to  him  and  to 
ourselves. 

To  what  then  does  Paul's  doctrine  of  election 
amount  ?  To  this,  that  God  predetermined  to  reject 
the  Jews  and  to  choose  the  Christians,  that  is,  those 
who  believed  in  Christ,  for  his  people,  who  should  en- 
joy the  advantages  of  a  revelation ;  that  it  was  with  a 


< 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  179 

design  that  those  who  enjoyed  this  revelation,  should 
become  assimilated  in  character  to  Christ.  In  pursu- 
ance of  this  plan  the  Gospel  was  preached,  and  men 
were  invited,  as  it  is  elsewhere  expressed,  "  into  his 
kingdom  and  glory."  Those  who  obeyed  the  call,  were 
by  the  moral  means  of  the  Gospel,  made  holy,  and  ac- 
cepted, and  glorified  by  God.  Is  there  anything  here 
said  of  the  natural  and  moral  inability  of  man,  and  his 
being  in  a  state,  by  nature,  of  inevitable  damnation  ? 
Is  there  anything  said  of  election  causing  any  individual 
to  embrace  the  Gospel,  or  does  the  election  which  Paul 
speaks  of  merely  give  him  the  opportunity  ?  Is  the 
reason  why  calling  is  effectual  in  some,  ascribed  to  the 
immediate  operation  of  God's  irresistible  power  or  Spirit 
on  the  mind  of  man,  or  is  there  not  one  word  said  about 
it,  and  we  are  left  to  conclude  that  it  is  the  free  will  of 
man,  as  in  other  cases,  which  determines  his  choice  ? 
In  short,  is  the  predetermination  of  God  represented  as 
the  cause  why  any  one  individual  accepts  the  Gospel, 
or  is  God's  reprobation  represented  as  the  cause,  instead 
of  the  consequence,  of  any  man's  rejecting  the  Gospel  ? 
These  differences  separate  this  doctrine  of  election 
as  stated  by  Paul,  and  that  which  is  fabricated  in  Creeds 
and  Catechisms,  as  far  as  the  east  is  from  the  west. 
One  supposes  man  to  be  in  a  state  of  freedom.  The 
other  supposes  iiim  cliained  to  the  rock  of  destiny,  and 
there  tantalized  and  scourged  with  the  utmost  cruelty 
and  barbarity.  The  one  represents  him  as  the  subject 
of  a  just  retribution.  The  other  makes  him  to  be  re- 
warded without  merit  and  punished  without  guilt.  The 
one  represents  one  man   as   raised  by  the   inscrutable 


180  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

providence  of  God  above  another  in  point  of  privileges, 
which  he  may  improve  or  abuse,  but  for  which  he  is 
strictly  accountable.  The  other  represents  one  man  as 
raised  from  a  state  of  perdition,  in  which  he  was  in- 
volved by  an  agency  not  his  own,  by  the  arbitrary 
choice  of  God  to  a  state  of  eternal  happiness,  and  an- 
other, just  as  deserving,  left  to  sink  in  eternal  perdition, 
without  ever  having  had  the  opportunity,  by  possessing 
freedom  of  the  will,  to  do  anything  for  his  own  deliv- 
erance. We  reject  then,  with  horror,  the  election  of 
Creeds  and  Catechisms,  and  hold  only  to  that  of  the 
apostles. 

Now  we  ask,  which  of  these  doctrines  of  election  is 
most  analogous  to  the  common  providence  of  God  ? 
We  see  a  system  of  election  going  on  continually 
around  us.  We  see  men  placed  by  what  appears  to  us 
to  be  the  arbitrary  appointment  or  choice  of  God  in 
every  possible  variety  of  condition.  We  see  those  con- 
ditions apparently  exerting  an  influence  upon  their 
mpral  characters,  so  that  as  far  as  appears  to  us,  a  man's 
virtuous  or  vicious  character  is  the  natural  result  or  ef- 
fect of  the  circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed,  and 
yet  we  never  say,  that  such  a  man  is  elected  to  be  vir- 
tuous or  vicious.  And  why  do  we  not  ?  In  the  first 
place,  because  it  would  be  making  impious  imputations 
on  God.  And  in  the  second  place,  because  we  do  not 
apprehend  sin  in  any  situation  to  be  strictly  necessary 
and  unavoidable.  We  do  not  feci  nor  believe  that  the 
will  of  man  is  merely  mechanical,  operated  upon  irre- 
sistibly by  outward  circumstances.  We  feel  and  be- 
lieve that  it  has  an  independent  action  by  which  it  may 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  181 

resist  outward  influences.  We  see  too,  that  character 
has  not  this  invariable  and  mechanical  correspondence 
with  outward  condition  ;  that  different  individuals  in 
precisely  the  same  circumstances,  as  far  as  human  pen- 
etration can  perceive,  act  difterently,  form  diflTerent 
characters,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  beforehand, 
what  that  character  will  be.  One  person  is  elected  to 
have  good  and  pious  parents,  another  to  derive  his  ex- 
istence from  the  vicious  and  irreligious,  and  though  it 
cannot  be  denied,  that  as  far  as  we  can  see,  the  child 
of  good  and  religious  parents  has  a  better  opportunity 
than  the  child  of  the  vicious  and  irreligious,  still  we 
recognize  no  necessary  and  inevitable  connection  be- 
tween any  outward  circumstances  and  any  character, 
either  good  or  bad,  because  we  do  not  see  in  fact  any 
such  necessary  and  inevitable  connection.  We  see  the 
children  of  good  parents  turn  out  badly,  and  the  chil- 
dren of  bad  parents  turn  out  well.  We  feel  in  our- 
selves, we  perceive  that  the  integrity  of  the  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God  requires,  that  there  should  be  a  sense 
of  right  and  wrong  within  us,  and  a  power  to  act  ac- 
cording to  it,  compared  with  which  outward  circum- 
stances are  but  as  the  small  dust  of  the  balance.  That 
God  makes  great  disparity  in  men's  outward  condition, 
no  one  can  deny,  or  wishes  to  deny.  That  he  does 
this  by  arbitrary  election  is  equally  certain.  To  this 
kind  of  election,  the  terms  of  the  Catecliisms  may  be 
applied  with  certainty  and  perfect  truth.  God  has 
chosen  individuals  to  particular  conditions,  "  without 
any  regard  or  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  per- 
severance in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the 
16 


182  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

creature  moving  him  thereto."  This  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  his  moral  character.  Nay,  we  believe,  that 
it  is  in  mercy  that  he  appoints  in  a  great  measure,  the 
outward  condition  of  mankind.  As  it  is  necessary  to 
the  good  of  the  whole,  that  different  individuals  should 
have  different  stations  and  capacities,  so  it  is  equally 
for  their  good  that  God  should  choose  the  individuals. 
Were  it  all  left  to  man,  this  life  would  be  a  perpetual 
contest,  strife  and  war  for  the  highest  stations,  and  the 
greatest  endowments.  That  narrow  space  which  God 
has  now  left  open  for  men  to  rise  or  to  fall  in,  creates 
no  small  degree  of  uneasiness  and  emulation.  What 
would  be  the  condition  of  mankind,  were  every  thing 
left  open  in  the  same  way  ?  The  appointment  of  man's 
condition,  in  a  great  measure,  by  God,  has  the  same 
tranquillizing  and  satisfying  effect  that  the  distribution 
of  desirable  things  by  lot  sometimes  has,  to  which  men 
are  often  forced  to  resort  in  their  temporal  affairs.  And 
he  who  thus  appoints  the  condition  of  every  human 
being,  is  the  rightful  and  infallible  judge  how  far  what 
is  good  or  evil  in  their  conduct  is  the  result  of  circum- 
stances, and  how  far  of  free  moral  action  and  sponta- 
neous choice.  The  election  then,  which  we  maintain 
that  the  Scriptures  teach,  finds  a  close  analogy  in  that 
election  which  we  know  God  exercises  in  his  common 
providence,  that  is,  election  to  privileges  and  advan- 
tages. But  the  other  doctrine  of  election  to  personal 
character,  to  moral  action  of  one  kind  or  other,  finds  no 
parallel,  no  analogy  anywhere  in  the  universe,  of  which 
we  have  any  knowledge.  The  first  is  consistent  like- 
wise  with   God's  moral   attributes,  for  it  is  temporary 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  183 

and  remediable,  the  other  is  inconsistent  with  the  moral 
perfections  of  God,  because  it  is  final  and  eternnl. 
Which  then  is  antecedently  and  intrinsically  most 
probable  ? 

We  will  now  examine  some  of  the  examples  of  elec- 
tion mentioned  in  Scripture,  and  see  to  which  of  these 
theories  of  election  they  most  accurately  correspond. 
The  whole  nation  of  Israel  are  called  God's  elect. 
David  says,  "  Thy  servant  is  in  the  midst  of  thy  people, 
whom  thou  hast  chosen,"  or  elected.  "  That  I  may 
see  the  good  of  thy  chosen,"  or  elect.  "  For  Jacob  my 
servant's  sake,  and  Israel  mine  elect."  And  in  what' 
sense  were  they  God's  elect  ?  Not  certainly  in  the 
sense  of  personal  election  to  eternal  salvation,  for  it 
does  not  appear  that  they  were  any  better,  taking  into 
consideration  their  moral  advantages,  than  any  other 
nation.  Another  instance  of  election  is  that  of  Jacob 
and  Esau.  Jacob  was  chosen,  to  what  ?  Not  to  sal- 
vation, but  to  have  the  birth-right,  which  was  a  mere 
civil,  outward  privilege,  and  he  was  therefore  the  father 
of  the  nation  of  Israel.  They  both  acted  in  their  pri- 
vate affairs,  on  their  own  personal  responsibility,  and 
we  have  no  reason  for  believing  from  anything  which 
the  Scriptures  say,  that  Jacob  was  a  better  man  than 
Esau,  or  was  any  more  likely  to  attain  eternal  life. 

The  disciples  of  Christ  were  elected,  but  not  to  per- 
sonal character,  or  salvation,  for  one  of  them  was  lost. 
Paul  was  elected,  not  to  be  saved,  but  '•  to  be  a  chosen 
vessel,"  as  God  said  to  Ananias,  when  he  sent  him  to 
restore  his  sight,  "to  bear  my  name  before  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  kings,  and  the  children  of  Israel,"     But  did 


184  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

this  election  secure  his  salvation  ?  By  no  means.  That 
depended  on  his  own  moral  acts,  his  own  conduct.  For 
he  himself  says,  "  Brethren,  I  count  not  myself  to  have 
apprehended,  but  I  follow  after  that  I  may  apprehend, 
that  for  which  I  am  also  apprehended  of  Christ.  I 
keep  my  body  under,  and  bring  it  into  subjection,  lest 
that  by  any  means,  when  I  have  preached  to  others,  I 
myself  should  be  a  castaway."  Is  this  the  language  of 
a  man  who  feels  himself  to  be  personally  elected  to  sal- 
vation ?  Certainly  not.  And  if  Paul  was  not,  who 
ever  was  ?  To  what  was  be  elected  ?  To  preach  the 
gospel,  "  for,"  says  he,  "  necessity  is  laid  on  me,  yea, 
wo  is  unto  me  if  I  preach  not  the  gospel.  For  if  I  do 
this  thing  willingly,  I  have  a  reward  ;  but  if  against 
my  will  a  dispensation,"  or  stewardship,  "  of  the  gospel 
is  committed  to  me ;"  and  he  could  not  refuse  it.  Is 
there  anything  like  personal  election  in  all  this  ? 

We  have  already  stated  the  doctrine  of  reprobation. 
We  will  repeat  it,  in  order  to  compare  it  with  those 
passages  of  Scripture  from  which  it  is  derived.  "  The 
rest  of  mankind  God  was  pleased  according  to  the  un- 
searchable counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  extend- 
eth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory 
of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by, 
and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin, 
to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice."  One  of  the  prin- 
cipal proof  texts  of  this  horrible  doctrine  is  this,  from 
the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans.  "  What  if  God  willing 
to  show  his  wrath,  and  make  his  power  known,  endur- 
eth  with  much  long  suffering  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted 
for  destruction."     Whom  do  these  vessels  of  wrath 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  185 

mean  ?  Do  they  mean,  as  this  Catechism  interprets, 
the  rest  of  mankind,  whom  Adam  ruined,  and  made  in- 
capable of 'doing  anything  good,  and  to  whom  God  ar- 
bitrarily chose  not  to  give  that  power  ?  Let  the  con- 
nection show.  "  And  that  he  might  make  known  the 
riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he 
hath  afore  prepared  unto  glory,  even  us,  whom  he  hath 
called,  not  only  of  the  Jews,  but  of  the  Gentiles.  As 
he  saith  also  in  Osee,  I  will  call  them  my  people  which 
were  not  my  people."  Then  he  is  not  speaking  con- 
cerning mankind  in  general,  he  is  not  speaking  of  the 
fate  of  men  in  a  future  world  at  all.  He  is  speaking 
of  the  Jews  whom  God  had  reprobated  from  being  his 
people,  and  had  chosen  the  Christians,  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles  in  their  stead.  It  is  the  Jews  then,  whom  God 
had  rejected  and  was  about  to  destroy,  that  are  called 
the  vessels  of  wrath,  with  whom  God  had  forborne  with 
much  long  suffering,  not  wicked  men  generally.  So 
this  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  personal  election 
or  reprobation  in  regard  to  salvation  at  all.  That  sub- 
ject is  not  so  much  as  touched  upon  in  this  whole  epis- 
tle. The  great  burden  which  lay  upon  the  apostle's 
mind,  was  the  rejection  and  awful  fate  of  the  Jews, 
which  was  then  impending,  and  in  a  few  years  after 
took  place.  He  begins  this  very  chapter,  thus  :  '•  I  say 
the  truth  in  Christ,  I  lie  not,  my  conscience  also  bear- 
ing me  witness  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  I  have  great 
heaviness  and  continual  sorrow  of  heart,  for  I  could 
wish  myself  accursed  from  Christ,  for  my  brethren,  my 
kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,  who  are  Israelites." 
This  is  continued  to  the  end  of  the  argumentative  part  of 
16* 


186  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION. 

the  Epistle.  Further  on  he  says  :  "  I  speak  to  you,  Gen- 
tiles." "  If  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  oft',  and  thou, 
being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them." 
"  Boast  not  against  the  branches,"  "  because  of  unbe- 
lief were  they  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith. 
Be  not  high-minded  but  fear,  for  if  God  spared  not  the 
natural  branches,  take  heed  that  he  also  spare  not  thee." 
Is  this  the  language  which  would  be  addressed  by  the 
apostle  to  men,  who  were  personally  and  irrevocably 
elected  to  salvation,  or  to  Gentiles  or  heathens,  who 
had  been  brought  into  a  peculiar  relation  to  God  by 
having  the  Gospel  preached  to  them,  and  had  become 
Christians,  so  far  as  believing  on  Christ  and  acknowl- 
edging his  authority  could  make  them  so,  but  still  were 
in  danger  of  not  attaining  that  whereunto  they  were 
called  ? 

This  view  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  which  the 
apostle  has  himself  given,  must  be  kept  in  mind,  and 
will  serve  as  a  key  to  interpret  all  ot^ier  passages  in 
which  the  doctrine  is  mentioned.  Christians  are  ad- 
dressed by  the  apostle  as  having  been  chosen  in  Christ 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  But  how  are  they 
chosen  in  or  through  Christ  ?  They  were,  inasmuch  as 
God  before  determined  at  the  fulness  of  time  to  send 
Christ,  and  through  him  the  Gospel  to  as  many  as 
heard  the  preaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  All 
who  believed  were  taken  into  an  especial  relation  to 
God.  They  were  chosen  then  to  what  ?  To  be  Chris- 
tians ;  and  if  they  were  faithful,  the  Gospel  would  be 
the  means  of  raising  them  to  holiness  and  happiness. 
Peter  expresses  this  whole  matter  with  great  plainness. 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  187 

He  says  to  the  Christians,  whom  he  was  addressing, 
"  But  ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  a 
holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people,  that  ye  should  show  forth 
the  praises  of  him  who  hath  called  you  out  of  darkness 
into  his  nvirvellous  light.  Which  in  time  past  were 
not  a  people,  but  now  are  the  people  of  God ;  which 
had  not  obtained  mercy,  but  now  have  obtained  mer- 
cy." But  in  addressing  these  same  Christians,  this 
elect,  as  he  had  called  them,  he  exhorts  them  to  give 
all  diligence,  to  add  unto  faith  virtue,  to  virtue,  knowl- 
edge, temperance,  patience,  godliness.  "  Wherefore 
the  rather,  brethren,  give  all  diligence  to  make  your 
calling  and  election  sure  ;  for  if  ye  do  these  things,  ye 
shall  never  fall."  How  can  this  be  ?  Can  a  personal 
election  to  eternal  life,  "  without  foresight  of  faith  or 
good  works,"  be  made  sure?  Is  it  then  uncertain? 
The  election  here  spoken  of  cannot  be  personal,  un- 
conditional election.  It  must  be  calling  and  election 
to  be  Christians  only,  which  is  the  very  point  we  wished 
to  prove.  To  have  the  calling  and  election  made  sure, 
must  be  effectual  calling.  But  this  effectual  calling  can 
happen  only  through  the  free  co-operation  of  man.  It 
is  only  by  his  giving  all  diligence  to  cultivate  those  vir- 
tues, which  the  apostle  has  enumerated,  that  his  calling 
and  election  as  a  Christian  can  be  made  effectual  to 
his  personal  salvation.  Oh  how  different  is  this  from 
the  effectual  calling  of  Creeds  and  Catechisms,  which 
is  carried  on  entirely  arbitrarily,  without  the  interven- 
tion of  the  human  will  rationally  and  spontaneously  ex- 
ercised !  How  much  more  rational,  and  consistent,  and 
agreeable  to  the  moral  sense  and  experience  of  man- 
kind ! 


188  ELECTION   AND  REPROBATION. 

I  have  searched  the  Scriptures  with  great  care,  and 
have  been  able  to  find  in  them  no  trace  of  that  personal 
election  and  reprobation,  which  Catechisms  and  Creeds 
maintain.  I  find  nothing  of  human  inability,  or  irre- 
sistible divine  influence.  I  do  not  find  that  the  elec- 
tion, whatever  it  was,  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  New 
Testament,  extended  to  any  except  Christians,  or  those 
to  whom  the  Gospel  was  preached.  I  do  not  find  that 
it  extended  to  those,  who  lived  before  the  time  of  Christ, 
or  to  those,  who  then  lived,  or  have  since  lived,  who 
never  heard  of  him  or  listened  to  the  invitations  of  the 
Gospel.  But  this  leaves  the  fate  of  ninety-nine  hun- 
dredths of  mankind,  whose  souls  are  just  as  dear  to  God 
as  the  hundredth  part,  to  be  determined,  even  if  this 
doctrine  be  true  in  the  sense  maintained,  without  re- 
spect to  this  election.  This  circumstance  is  confirma- 
tion to  show  that  system-makers  have  travelled  without 
and  beyond  the  record,  when  they  have  extended  to 
all  mankind,  what  was  spoken  merely  and  solely  of 
Christians. 

The  only  part  of  Scripture  which  seems  to  my  mind 
to  have  any  appearance  of  teaching  predestination,  or 
personal,  arbitrary  election,  is  the  conversation  of  Christ 
with  the  Jews  immediately  after  the  miracle  of  the 
loaves  and  fishes,  by  which  many  worldly  people  were 
induced  to  follow^  him,  not  that  they  might  be  benefited 
by  his  doctrine,  but  that  they  might  idly  obtain  a  sup- 
port. Whenever  he  attempted  to  say  to  them  anything 
of  a  spiritual  and  elevated  nature,  they  began  to  cavil, 
and  perversely  to  take  that  literally  which  he  meant  in 
a  figurative  sense.     When  he  spoke  of  his  being  the 


ELECTION   AND  REPItOBATION.  189 

bread  that  came  down  from  heaven,  meaning  his  doc- 
trine, they  disingenuously  took  him  to  mean  iiis  person. 
Just  so  with  regard  to  his  giving  them  his  flesh.  He 
soon  grew  weary  of  them,  and  told  them,  "  No  man 
can  come  to  me  except  the  Father,  which  hath  sent  me, 
draw  him."  And  afterwards  ;  "  Therefore  said  I  unto 
you,  no  man  can  come  unto  me, except  it  were  given  unto 
him  of  my  Father."  These  two  sentences  have  at  first 
sight  the  appearance  of  teaching  that  the  power  to  be- 
come a  true  disciple  of  Christ  was  arbitrarily  bestowed. 
But  this  appearance  vanishes  when  we  compare  it  with 
other  parts  of  the  same  conversation,  and  consider  the 
occasion  and  purpose  for  which  it  was  spoken.  Some 
had  come  to  him  with  wrong  motives  and  with  evil  dis- 
positions. He  tells  them  that  this  was  not  coming  to 
him  truly  and  acceptably.  "  It  is  written  in  the 
prophets,"  referring  as  was  supposed  to  the  times  of 
the  Messiah,  "  And  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God. 
Every  man  therefore  that  hath  heard  and  hath  learned 
of  the  Father  cometh  unto  me."  How  then  was  it  that 
it  was  given  to  men  to  come  to  Christ?  This  verso 
explains  it  to  be  by  his  having  taught  them.  But  in 
order  that  he  should  teach  them  they  must  learn.  So 
he  says,  Whosoever  hath  heard  and  learned  of  the  Fa- 
ther, cometh  to  me.  Was  not  this  hearing  and  learning 
a  perfectly  voluntary  act  ?  Then  this  giving  to  men  to 
come  to  Christ  was  exercised  by  God  not  arbitrarily,  or 
independently  of  their  will  and  free  agency,  but  through 
it.  Those  whom  God  had  taught,  but  who  had  like- 
wise been  willing  to  learn,  were  they  to  whom  God  had 
given  to  come  acceptably  to  Christ.     Christ  does  not 


190  ELECTION   AND   REPROBATION. 

mean  to  say  that  God  arbitrarily  gave  the  power  to  some 
and  withheld  it  from  others,  of  coming  acceptably  to 
him.  He  means  to  say  that  God  hath  given  it  to  them 
who  are  willing  to  receive  it,  that  is,  who  had  received 
and  obeyed  and  profited  by  the  instructions  which  he 
had  before  given  them.  So  these  assertions  of  Christ 
do  not  declare  the  doctrine  of  arbitrary  personal  elec- 
tion, when  taken  in  the  connection  in  which  they  stand, 
and  explained  by  the  context,  although  to  a  superficial 
observer  they  may  have  that  appearance. 

We  now  finish  our  argument  from  Scripture  with 
the  conclusion  that  the  doctrine  of  personal,  uncondi- 
tional election  is  not  taught  there.  This  is  enough  for 
those  who  take  their  religion  from  the  Bible  and  from 
the  Bible  alone. 

It  now  remains  to  discuss  an  argument  for  personal 
election  drawn  from  a  source  merely  and  purely  philo- 
sophical, the  foreknowledge  of  God.  Does  not  God 
foreknow  every  individual  who  will  be  saved  ?  Is  it 
not  one  of  the  Divine  perfections  to  know,  not  only 
everything  that  has  been,  but  everything  that  ever  will 
be  ?  Has  not  God  foretold  in  the  Scriptures  the  actions 
of  men  long  before  they  happened  ?  How  could  he  do 
this,  unless  the  future  actions,  and  the  future  condition 
of  every  human  being  were  known  to  him  ?  How  could 
this  be,  unless  everything  is  unchangeably  predeter- 
mined ?  Does  it  not  therefore  follow  that  all  human 
actions,  as  well  as  human  events,  are  arranged  in  a 
chain,  or  rather  a  web,  no  particle  of  which  can  ever 
be  displaced? 

We  answer  in  the  first  place,  that  this  subject  is  en- 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  191 

tirely  beyond  our  comprehension.  We  have  no  fixed 
data  from  wliich  we  can  certainly  decide  one  way  or 
the  other.  For  my  own  part,  so  httle  do  we  know  of 
the  abstract  nature  of  the  Deity,  that  I  am  not  incHned 
to  assert  or  deny  anything  very  positively  concerning 
the  metaphysical  perfections  or  attributes  of  the  Divine 
Mind.  There  is  much  fallacy,  I  fear,  in  the  language 
we  use  upon  this  subject.  The  word  foreknowledge 
takes  for  granted  the  very  point  in  question,  that  there 
is  a  kind  of  Fate  above  God  himself,  in  which  he  reads 
what  is  to  come.  No  future  event  can  be  foreknown, 
except  by  a  Being  who  has  the  power,  and  has  deter- 
mined, to  bring  it  to  pass.  His  predetermination  must 
be  the  foundation  of  his  foreknowledge.  That  he  has 
predetermined  every  act  of  his  own  to  all  eternity,  so 
as  no  longer  to  be  a  free  agent,  is  more  than  we  can 
know,  or  have  a  right  to  assert.  While  this  is  the  case, 
all  positive  assertions  concerning  God's  foreknowledge 
must  be  rash,  and  all  systems  founded  upon  it  can  have 
no  fixed  or  certain  foundation. 

Though  I  do  not  deny  the  universal  foreknowledge 
of  God,  it  is  by  no  means  clear  to  my  mind,  that  in 
saying  the  Deity  foresees  and  foreknows  everything  in 
the  sense  of  having  foreordained  it,  we  do  not  take  as 
much  from  his  perfections  in  one  particular  as  we  add 
to  them  in  another.  That  foreknowledge  and  foreor- 
dination  of  God,  which  fixes  all  future  events,  the  ac- 
tions of  voluntary  agents  among  the  rest,  fixes  likewise 
the  future  actions  of  the  Deity.  It  fixes  a  kind  of  fate, 
which,  like  that  of  the  ancient  heathens,  binds  God  and 
man.     Such  a  doctrine,  therefore,  as  much  as  it  adds 


192  ELECTION   AND  REPROBATION. 

to  God's  omniscience,  takes  away  from  his  omnipo- 
tence and  freedom.  It  lakes  from  his  omnipotence  in 
another  way.  It  makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  create 
a  contingency,  or  to  create  an  agent  positively  free.  It 
puts  it  out  of  his  power  to  create  a  state  of  probation.- 
It  is  no  more  honorable  to  the  Deity,  as  far  as  I  can 
conceive,  to  suppose  him  to  govern  the  universe  by  a 
decree  that  he  made  from  all  eternity,  than  that  he  gov- 
erns it  by  a  present  agency,  which  he  orders  every  mo- 
ment according  to  existing  circumstances.  The  nature 
of  a  free  volition  of  the  human  mind,  according  to  those 
ideas  of  freedom,  which  we  derive  from  consciousness 
and  observation  is,  that  it  has  no  necessary  and  un- 
avoidable connection  with  anything  that  went  before, 
with  any  state  of  the  mind,  or  of  outward  circum- 
stances ;  otherwise  it  is  mechanical,  necessary,  not  free. 
It  must  be  then  absolutely  uncertain  how  the  mind  will 
act.  It  is  no  impeachment  of  the  Divine  perfections  to 
suppose  that  he  does  not  foresee  that  as  certain,  which, 
for  the  sake  of  human  liberty  and  trial,  he  has  made 
uncertain.  That  he  governs  the  material  universe  by 
certain,  fixed,  and  invariable  laws  of  succession,  and 
likewise  the  general  course  of  human  events  is  probable 
and  uncontradicted ;  but  that  ihere  is  left  open  a  cer- 
tain space  for  the  free  will  of  man  to  act,  so  far  as  is 
necessary  to  form  and  display  character,  is  to  my  mind 
equally  probable. 

At  any  rate,  God  has  made  consciousness  to  be  to  us 
the  highest  and  most  undoubted  source  of  evidence  and 
belief.  We  are  conscious  that  we  are  free,  and  it  is  a 
natural   impossibility  for  us  to  believe  anything  else. 


ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  193 

Whatever  speculations  we  enter  into,  we  shall  always 
act  upon  this  supposition.  To  us  it  is  an  ultimate,  fun- 
damental principle,  not  to  be  done  away  or  modified 
by  any  other.  The  whole  moral  world  is  constructed 
upon  the  supposition  that  we  are  free.  God  treats  us 
as  if  we  were  so. 

Whether  the  foreknowledge  of  the  Deity  be  consist- 
ent with  our  freedom,  we  do  not  know.  One  is  a  mat- 
ter of  remote,  uncertain  speculation,  on  a  subject  con- 
fessedly beyond  our  faculties.  The  other  is  a  matter 
of  intimate,  continual,  and  certain  consciousness.  And 
if  it  be  not  true,  all  religious  inquiries  and  speculations 
are  equally  vain  and  unprofitable. 


17 


LECTURE    VIII. 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS. 

JAMES,  11.  14—26. 

"  What  doth  it  profit,  mt  beethren,  though  a  man  say  he 
hath  faith,  and  have  not  works  ?  can  faith  save  him  1  if  a 
brother  or  sister  be  naked,  and  destitute  of  daily  food, 
and  one  of  you  say  unto  them,  depart  in  peace,  be  ye  warmed 
and  filled  ;  notwithstanding  ye  give  them  not  those  things 
which  are  needful  to  the  body  ;  what  doth  it  profit  1  even 
so  faith,  if  it  have  not  works,  is  dead,  being  alone.  yea,  a 
man  may  say,  thou  hast  faith,  and  i  have  works  :  show  me 
thy  faith  without  thy  works,  and  i  will  show  thee  my  faith 
by  my  works.  thou  believest  that  there  is  one  god  ;  thou 
doest  well  :  the  devils  also  believe,  and  tremble.  but  wilt 
thou  know,  o  vain  man,  that  faith  without  works  is  dead? 
was  not  abraham  our  father  justified  by  works,  when  he 
had  offered  isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar?  seest  thou  how 
faith  wrought  with  his  works,  and  by  works  was  faith 
made  perfect?  and  the  scripture  was  fulfilled  which 
8aith,  abraham  believed  god,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him 
fob  righteousness  :  and  he  was  called  the  friend  of  god. 
ye  see  then  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not 
by  faith  only.  likewise  also  was  not  rahab  the  harlot 
justified  by  works,  when  she  had  received  the  messengers, 
and  had  sent  them  out  another  way  ?  fob  as  the  body  with- 
out the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without  works  is  dead  also." 

The  comparative  agency  of  faith  and  works  in  the 
justification  of  man,  is  thus  expressed  in   the  eleventh 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS.  195 

Article  of  the  Creed  of  the  Church  of  England.  "  We 
are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for  the  merit 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  by  faith  ;  and  not 
for  our  own  deservings.  Wherefore,  that  we  are  justi- 
fied by  faith  only,  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine,  and 
very  full  of  comfort,  as  more  largely  is  expressed  in  the 
homily  of  justification." 

The  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms  are 
more  elaborate  in  their  enunciation  of  this  doctrine. 
"  Those,"  say  they,  "  whom  God  effectually  calleth,  he 
freely  justifieth,  not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them, 
but  by  pardoning  their  sins,  and  by  accounting  and 
accepting  their  persons  as  righteous,  not  for  anything 
wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  them,  but  for  Christ's 
sake  alone,  not  by  imputing  faith  itself,  the  act  of  be- 
lieving, or  any  other  evangelical  obedience  lo  them  as 
their  righteousness,  but  by  imputing  the  obedience  and 
satisfaction  of  Christ  unto  them,  they  receiving  and 
resting  on  him  and  his  righteousness  by  faith,  which 
faith  they  have  not  of  themselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God. 
Faith  thus  receiving  and  resting  on  Christ  and  his 
righteousness,  is  the  alone  instrument  of  justification. 
Faith  justifies  the  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God,  not  be- 
cause of  those  other  graces  which  do  always  accompany 
it,  or  of  good  works  that  are  the  fruits  of  it ;  nor  as  if 
the  grace  of  faith,  or  any  act  thereof,  were  imputed  to 
him  for  his  justification,  but  only  as  it  is  an  instrument 
by  which  he  receiveth  and  applieth  Christ  and  his 
righteousness." 

You  perceive  at  once,  a  wide  discrepancy,  if  not  a 
plain  contradiction,  between  the  doctrine  of  justification 


196  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND  WORKS. 

as  stated  in  the  Creeds  and  Catechisms,  and  as  stated 
by  the  apostle  James.  The  Creeds  say,  that  "  men 
are  justified  by  God  not  for  anything  wrought  in 
them  or  done  by  them,  nor  any  other  act  of  evan- 
gehcal  obedience  flowing  from  faith,  nor  yet  by  the 
merit  of  faith  itself,  but  for  Christ's  sake  alone." 
James  declares  on  the  other  hand,  that  a  man  is  jus- 
tified both  by  faith  and  works.  "  Ye  see  then  how 
that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith 
only."  Now  we  ask,  which  is  most  entitled  to  credit, 
the  apostle,  or  the  Creeds  and  Catechisms  ?  Both 
cannot  be  true.  He  who  adheres  to  the  Creeds  must 
abandon  the  Bible. 

Before,  however,  we  compare  the  Creeds  with  the 
Scriptures,  we  shall  examine  their  doctrine  respecting 
the  efficacy  and  office  of  faith,  as  to  its  intrinsic  reason- 
ableness, probability  and  consistency.  We  say  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  or  the  infinite  preciousness  of  faith,  and  the 
worthlesness  of  works,  is  inconsistent  with  itself.  It  is 
admitted  on  all  hands,  that  faith  without  works  is  dead, 
and  standing  alone  is  unprofitable.  If  it  produce  good 
works,  then  it  is  valuable.  But  if  good  works  are  of  no 
value,  how  can  faith  be  more  valuable  for  producing 
that  which  is  worthless  ?  Is  not  action  or  inaction  en- 
tirely indifferent,  when  that  which  action  gains,  is  of  no 
use  after  we  have  obtained  it  ?  Of  what  consequence 
is  it  whether  a  man  be  living  or  dead,  if  what  he  does 
while  he  lives  be  of  no  avail ;  if  what  it  is  possible  for 
him  to  obtain,  have  no  power  to  satisfy  his  hunger,  or 
clothe  his  body,  or  shelter  him  from  the  storm  ?     What 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS.  197 

is  a  cause  good  for,  if  tlie  effect  it  produces  be  of  no 
value?  What  is  the  seed  worth,  if  the  fruit  be  worth 
nothing  ?  Is  there  any  difference  in  value  between  a 
tree  which  bears  no  fruit  at  all,  and  that  which  bears  a 
fruit,  which  lies  useless  and  untouched  by  man  or  beast  ? 
It  seems  to  my  niind  to  be  a  great  inconsistency,  and 
to  approach  very  near  a  contradiction,  to  say  that  faith 
without  works  is  without  value,  and  when  good  works 
accompany  it,  it  is  valuable,  and  still  to  affirm  that  those 
good  works  which  give  it  all  its  value  are  worthless 
themselves.  Certainly  they  are  valuable  for  this  very 
purpose  of  giving  value  to  faith.  Take  away  the  works, 
and  the  faith  will  be  without  value.  How  can  it  be 
said  then  that  works  are  not  valuable  ?  If  faith 
be  not  acceptable  without  works,  and  is  with  them, 
then  to  a  demonstration  it  is  the  works  which  render 
the  faith  acceptable.  If  a  man  cannot  be  accepted  for 
faith  without  works,  or,  to  use  the  technical  language 
of  theologians,  his  faith  is  not  acceptable,  saving  faith, 
unless  it  be  accompanied  by  works,  and  is  accepted  for 
faith  with  the  addition  of  works,  is  it  not  plain  that  the 
works  are  in  fact,  however  you  may  disguise  the  matter 
in  words,  the  ground  of  his  acceptance  ?  With  the 
works  his  faith  is  acceptable,  without  them  it  is  not. 
It  is  all  a  mere  quibble  upon  words  to  say  that  a  man's 
faith  is  acceptable  when  his  works  are  good,  and  still  to 
deny  that  he  is  accepted  on  account  of  his  good  works. 
For  according  to  this  hypothesis  it  depends  on  the 
man's  works  at  last,  whether  he  is  accepted  or  not. 
We  say  then  that  the  theory  which  makes  justification 
depend  on  faith  alone,  but  at  the  same  time  maintains 
17* 


198  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND  WORKS. 

that  no  faith  will  justify  a  man  unaccompanied  with 
good  works,  admits  what  it  seems  so  strenuously  to  de- 
ny, that  the  ultimate  ground  of  justification  is  good 
works. 

Into  just  the  same  dilemma  are  they  driven,  who  as- 
sert that  man  is  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
imputed  to  him  by  faith.  For  there  are  different  kinds 
of  faith.  There  is  a  living  and  a  dead  faith.  Which 
are  entitled  to  this  imputed  righteousness,  those  who 
possess  a  living  or  dead  faith  ?  Those  who  possess  a 
living  faith.  But  what  is  a  living  faith  ?  That,  and 
that  only  which  produces  good  works.  Then  he,  and 
he  alone,  is  entitled  to  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness, who  does  good  works.  Good  works  then, 
on  every  hypothesis,  are  the  ultimate  and  procuring 
cause  of  justification,  even  that  which  is  by  imputation. 
It  makes  no  real  difference  whether  a  man's  good  works 
prove  his  faith  to  be  good,  and  therefore  make  that  ac- 
ceptable and  through  that  himself  acceptable,  or  wheth- 
er they  are  considered  immediately  and  directly  to  make 
him  acceptable  himself.  The  difference  is  nothing  more 
than  that  of  a  verbal  and  metaphysical  subtilty. 

In  the  next  place,  the  doctrine  of  the  justification  of 
men  by  faith  alone  is  an  unreasonable  doctrine.  There 
is  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  things  why  faith  should 
stand  so  high  and  works  so  low  in  the  estimation  of 
God.  Let  us  consider  them  in  the  light  of  practical 
utility.  Neither  of  them  can  be  of  any  immediate  ben- 
efit to  God.  His  happiness  is  entirely  independent  of 
anything  his  creatures  either  do  or  fail  to  do.  Neither 
the  righteousness  nor  the  wickedness,  the  faith  or  the 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS.  199 

unbelief,  of  myriads  of  beings  can  add  to  his  happiness 
nor  deprive  him  of  it.  For  what  says  the  Scripture  ? 
"  Look  unto  the  heavens  and  see  ;  and  behold  the 
clouds,  which  are  higher  than  thou.  If  th6u  be  right- 
eous, what  givest  thou  him  ;  or  what  receiveth  he  of 
thy  hand  ?  If  thou  sinnest,  what  doest  thou  against 
him,  or  if  thy  transgressions  be  multiplied,  what  doest 
thou  unto  him  ?  Thy  wickedness  may  hurt  a  man  as 
thou  art,  and  thy  righteousness  may  profit  the  son  of 
man."  Here  then  is  the  standard  by  which  the  char- 
acter and  value  of  actions  and  properties  of  man  are  to 
be  weighed,  their  effect  upon  human  happiness  and 
welfare. 

Now  we  ask,  what  above  all  things  else  promotes 
human  happiness  and  welfare  ?  The  answer  is,  good 
works.  That  is  the  very  quality  from  which  they  de- 
rive their  name.  They  are  good  because  they  produce 
good.  What  portion  of  real  happiness  does  man  enjoy 
that  does  not  spring  from  good  works  ?  Why  is  the 
child  happy  ?  Because  the  parent  takes  care  of  it,  and 
provides  for  its  wants.  What  are  these  acts  of  the 
parent  but  good  works  ?  God  commands  them  to  be 
done,  by  the  law  of  nature,  of  morality,  and  of  revela- 
tion. Are  they  not  then  acceptable  to  God  inasmuch 
as  he  loves  and  cares  for  little  children  ;  especially  as  he 
commands  and  requires  them  to  be  done,  by  the  laws 
of  nature,  morality  and  revelation  ?  Shall  not  the  great 
Parent  be  pleased  with  every  act  of  kindness  done  to 
the  children  whom  he  loves  ?  Why  is  a  parent  happy  ? 
Because  his  child  is  affectionate,  dutiful  and  obedient. 
These  are  good  works  because  they  produce  good,  they 


200  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS. 

increase  the  sum  of  human  happiness.  God  dehghts 
in  human  happiness.  Shall  he  not  love  and  reward 
that  which  promotes  what  he  delights  in  ?  What  makes 
the  dependent  happy  ?  Generosity,  kindness,  and  char- 
ity in  those  from  whom  they  must  derive  all  they  enjoy. 
And  how  many  millions  there  are  of  such  on  the  globe  ! 
God  commands  that  generosity,  kindness  and  charity 
to  be  exercised.  And  shall  not  that  kindness,  and 
charity,  and  generosity,  be  acceptable  to  him,  when  they 
are  copies  of  his  own  glorious  perfections,  whereby  he 
causes  the  sun  to  shine  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good, 
and  sends  rain  upon  the  just  and  the  unjust  ? 

But  you  say,  perhaps,  that  this  is  mere  morality,  and 
morality  is  nothing  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  religion 
alone  that  he  regards.  A  heathen  may  have  morality, 
and  God  cares  nothing  about  the  heathen,  or  about 
merely  moral  men,  and  will  certainly  doom  them  all  to 
perdition  at  last.  We  answer,  that  these  lines  drawn 
between  religion  and  morality,  are  drawn  by  man  and 
not  by  God  ;  and  more  frequently  by  cold-blooded  big- 
otry and  metaphysical  divinity,  than  by  charity  or  com- 
mon sense.  That  is  meritorious,  that  is  religion,  which 
a  man  does  from  a  sense  of  duty,  or  in  obedience  to  the 
moral  laws  of  his  nature,  and  a  perception  of  right. 
That  is  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God,  which  it  costs 
self-sacrifice,  and  personal  privation  and  labor  to  per- 
form, in  obedience  to  the  highest  promptings  of  the 
mind,  and  which  adds  to  the  sum  of  human  happiness. 
Call  it  religion,  or  call  it  morality,  or  call  it  what  you 
please,  you  caimot  persuade  the  plain,  unsophisticated 
sense  of  mankind  of  anything  else,  than  that  everything 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS.  201 

is  acceptable  to  God,  which  his  pure  and  impartial  eye 
sees  to  be  done  by  any  human  agent  from  a  feeling  of 
duty,  from  a  perception  of  right,  from  generous  emo- 
tion, from  true  and  pure  affection,  from  love  to  truth, 
and  justice,  and  righteousness. 

For  what  is  a  man  made,  except  good  works  ?  Why 
has  he  understanding  to  perceive,  and  a  will  to  deter- 
mine, and  hands  and  energies  to  execute,  but  that  he 
may  do  something  ?  And  what  shall  he  do  ?  Not  evil, 
certainly,  but  good. 

And  shall  that  good  for  which  man  is  made,  and  for 
which  God  has  prepared  him  in  the  very  constitution 
of  his  nature,  be  nothing  worth  in  the  sight  of  God  ? 
Such  a  supposition  is  not  reasonable.  So  far  from  good 
deeds  having  no  merit,  they  are  the  only  merit  which 
man  can  have.  It  is  the  only  ground  of  difference  that 
we  know  between  a  bad  man  and  a  good  man. 

Now,  we  ask,  what  peculiar  merit  has  faith,  that  it 
should  be  put  so  infinitely  above  works  in  estimating 
worthiness  in  the  sight  of  God. 

What  is  faith  ?  Faith  is  the  assent  of  the  mind  to 
truth,  or  it  is  trust  in  God.  What  are  the  moral  quali- 
ties on  which  assent  to  truth  depends  ?  Candor  and 
honesty.  But  they  are  moral  qualities,  but  not  faith. 
Faith  then  has  no  moral  character  of  itself,  but  derives 
its  moral  character  from  candor  and  honesty.  Works 
have  a  positive  value  of  themselves.  They  produce 
happiness,  and  fulfil  God's  law.  But  were  there  noth- 
ing in  the  world  but  faith,  there  would  be  a  complete 
stagnation.  "  The  devils,"  the  apostle  says,  "  believe 
and  tremble."     There  may  be  such  overwhelming  evi- 


202  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS. 

dence  for  truth  as  to  make  faith  irresistible,  and  then 
behef  has  no  longer  any  merit  or  moral  character  what- 
ever. My  faith  can  confer  no  happiness  or  good  on 
others,  though  it  may  on  myself.  But  my  good  works 
may  confer  great,  lasting,  eternal  benefit  on  all  around 
me.  The  term  faith  may  be  used  in  the  sense  of  trust 
in  God.  Undoubtedly  this  is  acceptable  to  him,  for  it 
does  honor  to  his  perfections.  But  it  is  so,  only  so  long 
as  I  continue  to  do  my  duty,  that  is,  while  I  do  good 
works.  The  moment  I  cease  to  do  good  works,  my 
trust  in  God  becomes  unacceptable  and  irrational.  So 
that  faith  even  in  the  sense  of  trust,  without  good  works, 
is  vain  and  unprofitable.  Now  we  ask,  if  there  be  any 
reasonableness  in  placing  faith  so  far  above  works  as  a 
ground  of  acceptance  with  God  ?  Especially,  we  ask, 
if  it  be  reasonable  to  affirm  that  faith  is  everything,  and 
works  are  nothing? 

In  the  next  place,  we  say  that  the  final  acceptance 
of  men  on  account  of  faith  alone  is  improbable  from  all 
we  know  of  the  dealings  of  God  with  man  in  the  pres- 
ent world.  God  has  so  made  man  that  his  good  deeds 
are  the  cause  of  happiness  to  him  in  the  present,  and 
as  far  as  we  can  see,  in  all  future  time.  I  know  of  no 
better,  safer,  or  surer  method  of  learning  what  is  good 
and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God,  than  observing  what 
he  does.  He  certainly  rewards  good  deeds,  whether 
they  are  acceptable  to  him  or  not. 

As  soon  as  a  man  does  anything  good,  God  immedi- 
ately begins  to  reward  him.  He  makes  others  well  dis- 
posed toward  him  and  inclined  to  do  him  good  offices. 
In  the  sense  of  their  approbation  and  good  offices  he  is 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS.  '203 

happy,  is  rewarded.  And  inasmuch  as  it  is  through 
the  operation  of  that  nature  which  God  has  made,  God 
rewards  him,  as  it  were  through  mechanism.  Not  only 
so.  He  rewards  him  in  another  way,  by  the  pleasurable 
reflections  of  his  own  conscience.  These  begin  at  once, 
and  as  far  as  we  see,  can  never  terminate.  As  often 
as  they  come  up,  they  produce  happiness,  even  at  the 
remotest  period.  This  is  by  the  constitution  which  God 
has  given  the  human  mind,  and  is  therefore  indicative, 
if  anything  can  be,  of  his  disposition  and  will. 

Now  is  it  probable,  we  ask,  that  this  order  of  things 
will  cease,  and  another  be  introduced  in  another  world  ; 
that  God's  disposition  towards  good  works  will  change  ;, 
that  he  will  cease  to  approve  and  reward  them,  and  in- 
troduce another  scheme  of  retribution  totally  different, 
depending  on  faith  alone  ?  To  me  this  supposition  is 
entirely  improbable.  He  must  entirely  change  the 
whole  constitution  of  every  individual  of  the  human 
race.  He  must  make  every  human  being  forget  every 
good  deed  he  has  ever  done,  or  cease  to  look  upon  it 
with  satisfaction.  Now  to  my  mind  this  would  be  so 
destroying  personal  identity,  and  changing  the  whole 
man,  as  to  make  us  no  longer  the  same  persons ;  and 
of  course  the  connection  between  this  world  and  the 
next  would  be  entirely  destroyed.  If  men  are  to  be 
raised  to  another  life  merely  to  be  entirely  changed,  not 
to  be  judged  according  to  their  actions  here,  but  to  be 
treated  according  to  the  righteousness  which  is  then  be- 
stowed upon  them,  on  account  of  a  quality  in  them  not 
moral  to  any  great  extent,  viz.  more  or  less  faith,  and 
this  not  acquired  but  given,  then  future  happiness  be- 


204  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS. 

comes  a  thing  entirely  arbitrary.  That  this  should  be 
the  case  we  think  altogether  improbable. 

If  it  be  meant,  as  it  may  possibly  be  in  some  cases, 
though  most  unhappily  expressed,  that  no  man  can  be 
justified  by  works  in  the  sense  of  being  perfectly  inno- 
cent, fulfilling  the  whole  law,  that  there  must  be  mercy 
in  our  acceptance,  we  grant  it.  That  our  sins  must  be 
repented  and  forgiven,  and  our  deficiences  pardoned, 
we  do  not  deny.  But  that  all  the  good  there  is  in  us 
is  to  be  set  aside,  and  something  foreign  introduced, 
that  all  that  we  are,  have  been,  and  have  done,  is  to 
cease  to  affect  our  condition  and  happiness  in  future,  is 
a  doctrine  to  my  mind  utterly  and  totally  improbable 
and  incredible  ;  nothing  in  the  whole  compass  of  thought 
or  conception  could  be  more  so. 

There  is  a  strange  delusion  in  the  world  as  to  the 
nature  of  righteousness  and  goodness,  as  if  it  were  a 
something  distinct  from  the  man  who  possesses  it,  and 
to  be  transferred  like  any  other  possession  to  another 
person.  It  is  a  quality  or  attribute  of  man  which  he 
can  have  only  from  having  acted  right  in  his  own  per- 
son. Goodness  cannot  be  communicated.  One  man's 
being  good  never  can  make  an^other  man  good,  except 
through  his  own  free  agency.  The  righteousness  or 
goodness  of  Christ  was  a  quality  of  Christ  personally. 
It  cannot  be  transferred  to  another  person  any  more 
than  his  consciousness  or  his  personal  identity  can  be 
transferred.  Neither  sin  nor  holiness  are  transferable 
any  more  than  the  qualities  of  gold  can  become  the 
qualities  of  stone.  God  may  pardon  men  and  treat 
them  as  though   they  were  righteous  at  the  last  day. 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND  WORKS.  205 

His  benevolence  might  prompt  him  to  do  it.  But  even 
that  would  be  of  no  avail.  Righteousness  cannot  in 
the  nature  of  things  be  communicated.  PardonSwould 
not  make  them  happy.  For  be  it  ever  remembered 
that  no  man,  even  if  God  treats  him  as  if  he  were  good^ 
and  spreads  around  him  all  the  means  of  happiness,  can 
be  happy  unless  he  is  good.  No  man  can  be  any  hap- 
pier than  he  has  prepared  himself  to  be.  A  bad  man 
could  not  be  happy,  even  in  heaven.  The  righteous- 
ness then,  which  is  by  Christ,  is  that  from  the  very  na- 
ture of  things  which  he  induces  men  to  perform.  His 
office  is  then,  as  the  Scripture  represents,  "  to  purify  a 
people  from  all  iniquity,  and  make  them  zealous  of 
good  works." 

We  now  turn  to  the  Scriptural  argument.  And  we 
say,  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone  is  contra- 
dicted by  the  whole  current  of  Scripture  from  beginning 
to  end.  If  there  be  one  doctrine  in  the  Bible  more 
prominent  than  the  rest,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  rewards 
and  punishments,  that  man  is  to  be  rewarded  for  his 
good  works  and  punished  for  his  sins.  Upon  this  prin- 
ciple hung  the  whole  Jewish  economy,  and  God's  deal- 
ings with  his  chosen  people  for  many  centuries.  Hear 
the  fundamental  law  which  God  lays  down  by  Moses 
for  his  treatment  of  the  nation  of  Israel.  "  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  if  thou  shalt  hearken  diligently  unto  the 
voice  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  observe  and  to  do  all  his 
commandments  wjiich  I  command  thee  this  day,  that 
the  Lord  thy  God  shall  set  thee  on  high  above  all  the 
nations  of  the  eartii.  And  all  these  blessings  shall  come 
on  thee  and  overtake  thee,  if  thou  shalt  hearken  unto 
18 


206  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS. 

the  voice  of  the  Lord  thy  God.  Blessed  shalt  thou  be 
in  the  city,  and  blessed  shalt  thou  be  in  the  field." 
"  Blessed  shall  be  thy  basket  and  thy  store.  Blessed 
shalt  thou  be  when  thou  comest  in,  and  blessed  shalt 
thou  be  when  thou  goest  out."  "  Though  a  sinner," 
says  Solomon,  "do  evil  an  hundred  times,  and  his  days 
be  prolonged,  yet  surely  I  know  it  shall  be  well  with 
them  that  fear  God,  which  fear  before  him.  But  it  shall 
not  be  well  with  the  wicked,  neither  shall  he  prolong 
his  days,  which  are  as  a  shadow,  because  he  feareth  not 
before  God."  It  is  written  in  Isaiah,  "  Say  ye  to  the 
righteous,  that  it  shall  be  well  with  him,  for  they  shall 
eat  the  fruit  of  their  doings.  Woe  unto  the  wicked,  it 
shall  be  ill  with  him,  for  the  reward  of  his  hands  shall 
be  given  him."  "  If  a  man,"  says  Ezekiel,  "  be  just, 
and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right ;"  "  hath  walked 
in  my  statutes,  and  kept  my  judgments,  to  deal  truly, 
he  is  just ;  he  shall  live,  saith  the  Lord."  "  The  right- 
eousness of  the  righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  and  the 
wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him."  Would 
it  not  appear  by  this,  that  works  as  well  as  faith  are  a 
ground  of  acceptance  with  God  ?  Could  there  be  a 
more  explicit  contradiction  of  the  doctrine  that  man  is 
justified  by  faith  alone  ? 

We  now  come  to  the  New  Testament.  And  there 
we  find  the  first  discourse  of  our  Lord,  in  its  whole  drift, 
to  run  counter  to  it.  It  is  often  asserted  that  the  law 
and  the  Gospel  are  essentially  different  in  their  funda- 
mental principles.  Nay,  I  have  heard  it  explicitly  stated 
that  the  language  of  the  law  is,  "  Do  this  and  thou  shalt 
live."     But  of  the  Gospel,  "  According  to  thy  faith  so 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND  WORKS.  207 

be  it  unto  thee."  Now,  as  it  appears  to  me,  nothing 
can  be  more  contrary  to  fact.  The  Gospel  proposes  a 
law  still  more  rigorous  and  exacting  than  the  law  itself, 
and  insists  on  an  obedience  still  more  minute  and  uni- 
versal. It  insists  not  only  on  all  the  law  demands,  but 
much  more.  "Think  not,"  said  Christ,  "  that  lam 
come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets.  I  am  not  come 
to  destroy  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you, 
Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in 
no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled.  Whoso- 
ever therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  command- 
ments, and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the 
least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  but  whosoever  shall 
do  and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  What  then  is  not  only  a 
man's  acceptance,  but  his  eminence  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  here  made  to  depend  upon  ?  On  his  doing  and 
teaching  these  commandments.  And  what  is  doing  the 
commandments  but  good  works  ?  A  man's  greatness 
in  the  kingdom  is  to  depend  precisely  upon  the  number 
and  amount  of  his  good  works.  What  then  becomes 
of  justification  by  faith  alone? 

Exactly  agreeable  to  this  is  Christ's  close  of  what 
may  be  considered,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  preceptive 
part  of  the  Gospel.  At  the  end  of  the  sermon  on  the 
Mount,  which  is  the  summary  of  the  Christian  code  of 
laws,  a  very  directory  of  good  works,  he  concludes  with 
this  declaration :  "  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me, 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven."     ''  Therefore,  whosoever  heareth  these  sayings 


208  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND  WORKS. 

of  mine,  and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  him  unto  a  wise 
man  which  built  his  house  upon  a  rock :  And  the  rain 
descended,  and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew, 
and  beat  upon  that  house,  and  it  fell  not,  for  it  was 
founded  on  a  rock." 

What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  parable  of  the  talents  ? 
"  Thou  hast  been  faithful  over  a  few  things,  I  will  make 
thee  ruler  over  many  things :  enter  thou  into  the  joy  of 
thy  lord."  Is  this  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  or  by  imputed,  borrowed  righteousness,  or  is  it 
justification  by  works  as  well  as  faith  ? 

We  now  come  to  the  great  test,  Christ's  solemn  and 
scenic  representation  of  judgment,  that  very  transaction, 
where  faith  is  represented  to  be  so  omnipotent  and 
works  so  worthless. 

Is  there  one  word,  in  all  that  imposing  and  impres- 
sive scene,  said  concerning  faith  as  the  one  grand,  sole 
requisite  ? 

Does  that  transaction  look  like  the  doctrine  that  the 
accepted  are  justified,  "  not  on  account  of  anything 
done  by  them,  or  any  other  evangelical  obedience,  but 
by  imputing  the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ," 
according  to  the  Creeds  and  Catechism  ?  Let  us  read 
the  record  :  "  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit 
the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world :  For  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  me 
meat :  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink :  I  was  a 
stranger,  and  ye  took  me  in :  Naked,  and  ye  clothed 
me:  I  was  sick,  and  ye  visited  me:  I  was  in  prison, 
and  ye  came  unto  me."  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Inas- 
much as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these, 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND  WORKS.  209 

my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me."  What  then 
becomes  of  justification  by  faith  alone  ?  Is  it  not 
strange,,  is  it  not  unaccountable,  that  it  should  have 
been  passed  over  in  most  profound  silence,  in  this  very 
transaction  where  it  is  supposed  by  this  theory  to  bear 
sway  alone  ?  Should  not  the  Judge  rather  have  said, 
"  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  had  faith,  although  I  set  aside 
and  disregard  as  filthy  rags,  your  own  righteousness, 
your  own  good  deeds,  I  impute  to  you  the  righteous- 
ness of  another,  and  on  that  account  bid  you  welcome 
to  eternal  joy  ?"  Such  should  have  been  the  language 
of  this  passage,  had  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone  been  true.  "They  that  have  done  good,''  says 
the  Saviour,  "  shall  come  forth  unto  the  resurrection  of 
life  ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the  resurrection 
of  damnation." 

I  need  not  repeat  to  you  the  proposition  with  which 
we  commenced  this  division  of  discourse,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith  alone,  is  contradicted  by 
the  general  current  of  Scripture,  and  explicitly  in  many 
of  the  most  important  passages. 

Whence  then  came  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  alone  ?  How  could  it  have  originated  in  the 
minds  of  men,  and  thence  found  its  way  into  Creeds 
and  Confessions  in  opposition  to  so  much  that  is  plain 
and  unequivocal  in  the  word  of  God  ?  It  claims  to  be 
founded  on  Scripture  too.  Many  texts  are  quoted  in 
support  of  it,  among  which  are  the  following,  from 
Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans :  "  Therefore,  by  the 
deeds  of  the  law,  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his 
sight."  "  Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justi- 
18* 


210  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND  WORKS. 

fied  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  Now  one 
of  these  two  things  is  certain,  either  that  the  Scriptures 
contradict  themselves  ;  one  part  affirming  what  another 
denies  ;  or  that  one  part  or  the  other  has  been  misun- 
derstood, and  thought  to  teach  a  doctrine  which  it  does 
not  teach.  We  cannot  suppose  that  Scripture  contra- 
dicts itself.  There  must  be  then  some  misapprehension. 
On  which  side  is  it  most  likely  to  be  ?  Which  is  most 
likely  to  be  mistaken,  the  very  kw  passages  in  which 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone  is  thought  to 
be  taught,  or  the  whole  compass  and  course  of  Scrip- 
ture, in  which  judgment  according  to  deeds  is  incul- 
cated ? 

Let  us  then  examine  these  few  passages  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Paul,  and  see  if  they  have  not  been  misappre- 
hended. James  says  in  our  text,  "  Ye  see  then  how 
that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only." 
Paul  says,  "  Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  It  first 
occurs  to  remark,  that  the  expressions  are  not  identical, 
though  similar.  James  asserts,  that  men  are  justified  by 
works,  that  is,  as  the  connection  demonstrates,  acts  of 
moral  goodness.  Paul  asserts  that  men  are  not  justified 
— by  what — not  works  simply,  acts  of  moral  goodness, 
for  then  there  would  have  been  a  plain  contradiction, 
but  by  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Now  acts  of  moral  good- 
ness, and  deeds  of  the  law  may  be  very  difterent  things, 
and  thus  Paul  may  not  deny  what  James  and  the  rest 
of  Scripture  assert.  James  declares,  that  no  man  can 
be  finally  accepted  by  God,  unless  he  be  a  good  man. 
Paul  may  mean,  and  probably  does  mean,  that  a  man 


JUSTIFICATION  BY   fAITH    AND   WORKS.  21  1 

may  be  a  good  Christian,  without  conforming  to  the 
law  of  Moses.  Paul  in  this  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and 
more  especially  in  that  to  the  Galatians  is  arguing 
against  the  Jews  and  Judaizing  teachers,  who  taught,  as 
we  are  informed  in  the  Acts,  that  the  converts  from 
heathenism  must  be  circumcised,  and  keep  the  law  of 
Moses  in  order  to  be  saved.  Paul  taught  on  the  con- 
trary, that  it  was  only  necessary  to  believe  on  Christ, 
repent,  and  live  according  to  the  Gospel.  It  is  not  his 
design  to  disparage  works  of  moral  goodness,  for  the 
last  five  chapters  of  this  very  Epistle  are  taken  up  in 
recommending  and  enjoining  them  on  Christians,  but  to 
draw  off  the  Jews  from  their  bigoted  attachment  to  the 
law  of  Moses.  But  why  does  Paul  apparently  speak  so 
highly  of  faith,  and  so  disparagingly  of  the  law?  Be- 
cause he  was  defending  the  new  religion  against  the  old- 
The  old,  as  the  degenerate  Jews  then  supposed,  placed 
salvation  in  a  minute  and  superstitious  observance  of  the 
laws  of  Moses.  The  new,  Paul  declares,  has  another 
method  of  bringing  men  into  a  state  of  salvation,  into  a 
state  of  nearness  to  God  and  acceptance  with  him.  He 
has  set  forth  Christ  to  be  a  propitiatory,  or  mercy  seat ; 
in  and  through  him  he  offers  pardon,  reconciliation  and 
justification,  or  acquittal  as  the  word  means  in  this  con- 
nection, to  all  mankind,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  on  con- 
dition of  faith,  repentance  and  obedience,  without  any 
regard  whatever  to  the  law  of  Moses.  And  this  is 
what  he  means,  when  he  speaks  of  being  justified  by 
faith  in  opposition  to  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Faith  then 
in  this,  and  similar  passages,  docs  not  mean  bare  belief 
alone,  but  the  whole  Christian  religion,  as  distinguished 
from  the  law  of  Moses. 


212  JaSTlFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND   WORKS. 

But  in  order  to  understand  the  writings  of  Paul,  with 
regard  to  faith  and  the  works  of  the  law,  we  must  take 
a  brief  view  of  the  state  of  things  at  that  time,  and  con- 
sider what  was  the  great  controversy  of  the  age.  When 
Paul  wrote  this  Epistle,  the  Jewish  temple  was  still 
standing  at  Jerusalem.  The  ritual  of  Moses  was  still 
maintained.  The  ceremonies  and  festivals,  and  all  the 
national  worship  which  had  been  established  and  recog- 
nized by  God  for  ages  was  still  kept  up,  and  as  flourish- 
ing as  it  ever  had  been,  and  no  external  indication  had 
yet  appeared  that  it  was  soon  to  decay.  The  Jewish 
nation  was  as  yet  apparently  the  chosen  people  of  God. 
The  first  Christians  were  Jews,  and  at  first  preached 
only  to  Jews,  and  thought  the  Gospel  was  intended  for 
them  alone,  although  their  Master  had  explicitly  told 
them  to  go  and  teach  all  nations.  The  vision  of  Peter 
and  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  a  Gentile,  convinced 
them  that  they  had  not  hitherto  comprehended  the  ex- 
tent of  their  commission.  Before  this,  they  themselves 
lived  after  the  Jewish  manner,  abstaining  from  particu- 
lar kinds  of  food,  forbidden  by  the  laws  of  Moses. 
Thus,  instead  of  mingling  with  the  Gentiles  as  they 
were  designed  to  do,  they  shunned  their  society  and 
kqpt  themselves  entirely  distinct.  There  was  danger 
then,  if  they  went  on  in  that  way,  that  Christianity  in- 
stead of  becoming  an  universal  religion,  as  it  was  in- 
tended to  be,  and  spreading  among  the  nations,  the 
heathen  would  consider  it  as  a  petty  Jewish  sect,  bound 
up  in  the  same  exclusive  peculiarities,  which  had  iso- 
lated them.  The  vision  of  Peter,  and  the  conversion  of 
Cornelius,  opened  their  eyes,  and  showed  them   that 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS.  213 

they  must  throw  off  all  their  Jewish  peculiarities,  and 
associate  freely  with  the  heathen,  and  preach  to  them 
the  Gospel  likewise,  receiving  them  as  Christians  on  the 
same  terms  as  the  Jews.  This,  however,  did  not  satisfy 
their  Jewish  converts  ;  they  considered  themselves  still 
as  Jews  to  be  the  favored  people  of  God,  and,  inas- 
much as  their  temple  was  standing,  and  its  rites  una- 
bolished, their  religion  still  to  be  sustained  by  God  and 
to  have  the  divine  sanction.  They  insisted  then  that 
the  heathen  converts  to  the  Gospel,  must  become  Jews 
as  well  as  Christians,  be  circumcised  and  keep  the  law 
of  Moses,  as  well  as  the  laws  of  Christ.  Thus  Chris- 
tianity was  in  danger  of  perishing  in  its  very  inception 
by  being  identified  with  Judaism.  This  attempt  of  the 
Jewish  converts  to  bring  the  Gentile  Christians  under 
the  bondage  of  the  Jewish  law,  seems  to  have  emanated 
from  Jerusalem.  We  read  of  it  in  the  fifteenth  chapter 
of  the  Acts.  "And  certain  men  which  came  down  from 
Judea,  taught  the  brethren,  and  said,  except  ye  be  cir- 
cumcised, after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be 
saved."  These  emissaries  went  around  wherever  the 
apostles  had  established  churches,  endeavoring  to  propa- 
gate their  doctrines.  Paul,  who  was  commissioned  from 
the  first  as  the  especial  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  as 
such  felt  himself  bound  to  defend  their  rights  and  liber- 
ties, from  the  outset  resisted  this  imposition,  "  When," 
we  read,  "  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  no  small  dissension 
and  disputation  with  them,"  they  determined  to  send 
and  consult  the  church  at  Jerusalem  on  this  matter. 
The  council  held  at  Jerusalem,  at  which  the  apostle 
James  presided,  decided  against  these  Judaizing  teach- 


214  JUSTinCATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS. 

ers,  and  determined  to  lay  none  of  the  burdens  of  the 
Jewish  ritual  upon  them.  Nothing  daunted  by  this  de- 
cision, these  false  teachers  went  on  to  disseminate  their 
doctrines,  and  disturb  the  churches  which  Paul  had 
planted.  To  counteract  their  influence  and  combat 
their  doctrines  was  one  of  the  prominent  objects  of 
Paul,  in  almost  all  his  Epistles  to  these  churches,  which 
he  wrote  to  them  in  his  absence.  Hence  it  is  that  we 
read  so  much  in  his  writings  concerning  the  law  in 
contrast  with  the  Gospel,  so  much  apparently  to  the 
disparagement  of  the  law  and  the  commendation  of 
the  Gospel.  Not  that  he  undervalued  the  law  in  its 
place,  but  considered  it  inferior  to  the  Gospel  as  a  sys- 
tem, and  was  therefore,  destined  to  give  place  to  it. 

But  in  proving  and  illustrating  this  great  truth,  in 
drawing  this  contrast  between  the  law  and  the  Gospel, 
to  the  advantage  of  the  latter,  he  makes  use  of  many 
arguments  which  are  addressed  only  to  Jews  and  which 
take  them  on  their  own  principles,  and  though  calcu- 
lated to  lead  them  into  the  truth,  yet  when  considered 
as  logical  and  philosophical  reasoning,  would  not  per- 
haps be  considered  as  conclusive  by  any  other  than  a 
Jewish  mind. 

"  Let  it  not  be  counted  strange  by  you  Jews,"  says 
the  apostle  in  that  paragraph,  whence  the  chief  argu- 
ments for  justification  by  faith  are  taken,  "  let  it  not  be 
considered  strange  that  God  should  admit  the  heathen 
into  a  state  of  favor  with  him,  such  as  you  have  hitherto 
supposed  yourselves  exclusively  to  possess,  on  condition 
of  their  believing  in  Christ,  or  their  faith,  without  sub- 
jecting them  to  the  laws  of  Moses.     I  can  show  you 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  AND  WORKS.  215 

from  your  own  Scriptures,  that  faith  has  before  been 
favorably  regarded  by  God,  in  one  not  subjected  to  the 
law,  or  even  to  circumcision.  You  read  in  your  own 
Scriptures,  that  "  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness."  And  observe, 
(which  is  the  chief  point  of  the  argument,)  this  was  be- 
fore he  had  received  the  rit&  of  circumcision.  And  if 
Abraham  obtained  the  favor  of  God  before  circumcision, 
why  may  not  the  Christian  converts  from  heathenism 
without  circumcision  and  the  ceremonial  law  ?  Why 
then  subject  them  to  it  at  all  ?"  Although  the  apostle 
says  that  "  Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was  imputed 
unto  him  for  righteousness,"  he  does  not  say  or  intimate 
that  this  was  the  sole  and  whole  ground  of  his  justifica- 
tion or  acceptance  with  God,  but  merely  that  it  was  an 
act  acceptable  to  him.  And  even  this  contradicts  the 
Creeds,  for  they  say  that  faith  itself  is  not  imputed  to 
the  believer  as  righteousness.  The  Westminster  Con- 
fession expressly  declares,  that  men  are  justified  not 
"  for  anything  done  by  them,  or  wrought  in  them,"  not 
by  imputing  faith  itself  the  act  of  believing,  "but 
by  imputing  the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ." 
"  But,"  continues  the  apostle,  "  there  is  still  according 
to  your  Scriptures,  another  ground  of  justification  open 
to  the  Gentile  Christians  without  conforming  to  the  laws 
of  Moses,  or  indeed  without  respect  to  works  of  any  kind 
strictly  speaking.  For  does  not  David  say,  "  Blessed 
are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins 
are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord 
will  not  impute  sin."  But  who  is  he  ?  He  who  has 
sincerely  repented.     "  Here  then  is  another  ground  of 


216  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   AND  WORKS. 

justification  open  to  the  Gentiles  without  subjecting 
them  to  the  law.  It  is  not  necessary  therefore  to  sub- 
ject them  to  it.  They  may  be  justified  even  according 
to  your  Scriptures,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law. 

It  was  by  seizing  on  detached  passages  in  arguments 
like  these,  and  wresting  them  from  their  connection  and 
the  argument  in  which  they  are  found,  that  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  alone  has  been  framed  and  sup- 
ported, so  contrary  to  the  general  sense  of  Scripture,  to 
innumerable  distinct  passages,  to  reason,  and  common 
sense.  What  Paul  really  thought  of  the  worth  of  mere 
faith  may  be  learned  from  other  parts  of  his  writings, 
such  as  this  :  "  Though  I  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men 
and  of  angels,  and  have  not  charity,  I  am  become  as 
sounding  brass,  or  a  tinkling  cymbal.  And  though  I 
have  all  faith,  so  that  I  could  remove  mountains,  and 
have  not  charity,  I  am  nothing."  This  was  the  right- 
eousness with  which  Paul  desired  to  appear  before  the 
tribunal  of  God,  when  he  says,  "  that  I  may  be  found 
not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law, 
but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  right- 
eousness which  is  of  God  by  faith,"  that  is,  Christian 
righteousness  and  not  Jewish  righteousness. 

I  might  go  on,  did  time  permit,  to  show  why  it  was 
that  the  Reformers,  Calvin  and  his  associates,  who  were 
the  principal  authors  of  our  present  Creeds,  extracted 
this  doctrine  with  such  infinite  labor  from  the  Scriptures, 
and  then  maintained  it  so  strenuously.  I  might  show 
you,  that  it  was  to  oppose  what  they  thought  the  great 
error  of  the  church  of  Rome,  the  doctrine  of  superero- 
gation, or  the  accumulation  of  a  fund  of  good  works,  if 


JUSTIFICATION   AY  FAITH   AND  WORKS.  217 

we  may  so  speak,  in  the  Catholic  church,  by  virtue  of 
which  they  pardoned  sins  and  sold  indulgences.  The 
reformers  thought,  if  they  could  establish  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  alone,  and  of  course  the  worth- 
lessness  of  good  works,  their  adversaries  would  be  en- 
tirely prostrated  and  the  abuse  of  indulgences  would  be 
cut  up  by  the  roots.  But  in  opposing  one  error,  we  have 
seen,  as  it  often  happens,  they  fell  into  its  opposite,  and 
erred  as  much  the  other  way.  "  Ye  see  then,  how  that 
by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only." 


19 


LECTURE   IX 


SALVATION. 


1  timothy,  i.  15. 

"  This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  acceptation, 
that  christ  jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners." 

The  subject  which  is  to  occupy  our  attention  this 
evening,  is  the  most  important  which  can  engage  the 
mind  of  man — salvation,  dehverance  from  evil,  and  the 
attainment  of  everlasting  happiness.  This  is  a  theme 
more  interesting,  if  possible,  than  those  we  have  hith- 
erto discussed.  The  topics  we  have  already  considered 
have  been  connected  with  the  highest  and  the  deepest 
objects  which  can  be  explored  by  the  human  mind. 
We  have  contemplated  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the 
eternal  One.  We  have  traced  him  in  his  works,  in  his 
providence,  in  his  revelation,  in  his  purposes.  We 
have  looked  into  his  dealings  with  the  human  race,  in 
the  state  of  nature,  and  under  the  discipline  of  a  super- 
natural dispensation.  We  have  attempted  to  investi- 
gate the  moral  nature  and  constitution  of  man,  as  to  its 
endowments,  its  powers  and  capacities.  We  have 
contemplated  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Covenant,  Jesus 


SALVATION.  219 

Christ,  in  his  nature  and  office,  in  the  purpose  and  de- 
sign of  his  mission. 

We  are  now  to  consider  the  practical  bearing  of  all 
these  subjects  upon  us,  our  condition,  our  prospects, 
our  happiness.  In  short,  we  are  to  consider  of  what 
benefit  all  these  things  can  be  to  man.  We  are  to 
consider  the  subject  of  salvation,  deliverance  from  pres- 
ent and  future  evil,  and  the  attainment  of  present  and 
future  happiness.  This  is  a  subject  which  must  be 
deeply  interesting  to  every  one  who  hears  me  this  night. 
In  every  bosom  now  before  me  there  burns  an  un- 
quenchable thirst  for  happiness,  and  an  unconquerable 
aversion  to  suffering.  There  is  too,  in  each  one  a 
strong  desire  and  expectation  of  immortality.  Exist- 
ence then  is  to  each  of  you  an  endless,  an  interminable 
prospect.  Your  only,  your  all-absorbing  inquiry  must 
be,  how  this  interminable  existence  is  to  be  passed  ; 
in  a  state  of  happiness  or  of  suftering. 

You  have  already  had  experience  of  both  enjoyment 
and  suflTering.  And  the  necessary  result  of  that  expe- 
rience is,  that  you  desire  in  future  to  escape  as  much 
suffering,  and  obtain  as  much  happiness  as  you  can. 
But  the  sufferings  you  have  already  endured,  divide 
themselves  into  two  kinds,  those  which  were  unavoid- 
able, and  those  which  might  have  been  avoided  ;  those 
which  have  arisen  from  natural  causes,  such  as  toil, 
care,  bereavement,  and  those  which  have  arisen  from 
misconduct,  feeling,  speaking,  and  acting  wrong,  con- 
trary to  your  own  convictions  of  right.  These  two 
classes  comprehend  all  the  evils  we  have  already  felt, 
or  ever  can  feel.     They,  of  course,  are  the  only  ones 


220  SALVATION. 

we  can  ever  fear.  These  two  classes  of  evils  are  still 
further  distinguished  by  this  circumstance,  one  of  them 
necessarily  injures  the  mind,  the  soul,  the  other  does  not. 
External  and  unavoidable  evils,  such  as  toil,  care,  pain, 
sickness,  bereavement,  do  not  injure  the  mind,  they 
sometimes  improve  it.  When  they  are  over,  the  mind 
recovers  from  them,  and  is  often  the  better  and  happier 
from  having  experienced  them.  The  other  species  of  evil 
wrong-doing,  is  pure,  unmixed  evil.  It  injures  the  mind. 
It  not  only  destroys  happiness,  but  it  pollutes  and  de- 
grades the  soul.  Its  evil  does  not  cease  with  the  act, 
nor  with  its  immediate  outward  effects.  When  these 
are  over,  its  bad  consequences  still  remain  in  the  soul, 
a  feeling  of  shame,  degradation,  self-reproach,  and  ill- 
desert,  and  a  diminished  capacity  for  happiness,  from 
any  source  whatever.  Among  these  bad  consequences 
may  be  enumerated  the  greater  liability  to  do  wrong 
again,  whenever  temptation  is  presented,  and  thus  to 
involve  the  soul  still  further  in  suffering  and  guilt. 
There  is  this  further  distinction  between  them,  outward 
evils  must  perish  with  the  body,  and  therefore  cease 
at  death  ;  moral  evil,  wrong  doing,  produces  its  effects 
upon  the  soul  itself,  resides '^n  the  soul,  and  of  course 
must  go  with  it  wherever  it  goes,  and  abide  with  it 
wherever  it  abides. 

Again,  a  great  amount  of  outward  evil  may  be  brought 
on,  and  actually  is  produced  by  wrong  doing.  Much 
of  natural  evil  is  produced  by  moral  evil.  It  would 
be  amazing  to  see,  were  the  whole  connection  of  causes 
and  effects  revealed  to  our  view,  what  a  vast  proportion 
of  the  outward  miseries  of  mankind  are  brought  upon 


SALVATION.  221 

themselves  by  their  own  and  each  other's  misconduct. 
What  a  large  amount  of  the  poverty  under  which  the 
multitude  of  mankind  continually  groan,  is  brought  upon 
them  by  idleness,  extravagance  and  vice,  and  then  what 
an  amount  of  vice  this  very  poverty  reproduces.  How 
many  of  the  diseases  and  pains  of  men  are  induced  by 
intemperance  and  excess.  How  much  of  the  social 
disquiet  which  afflicts  and  disturbs  society,  arises  from 
bad  and  ill-governed  passions,  from  wrong  desires,  pur- 
suits, and  principles.  In  short,  sm  is  the  great,  the 
radical,  the  all  comprehending  evil  of  this  world.  De- 
liver mankind  from  sin,  from  its  commission  and  of 
course  from  its  consequences,  and  what  a  glorious  world 
we  might  have !  The  whole  present  condition  and 
future  prospects  of  man  would  be  bright  and  cheering. 
We  said  that  the  class  of  moral  evils  were  avoidable. 
They  are  avoidable  because  they  depend  on  the  will, 
the  voluntary  conduct  of  men.  This  then  is  the  only 
salvation  of  which  man  is  capable,  the  salvation  from 
moral  evil,  from  sin.  Of  no  other  salvation  is  he  capa- 
ble, because  all  other  evils  depend  not  on  his  will,  or 
on  his  conduct.  They  are  for  wise  and  benevolent 
purposes,  the  allotment  of  God.  No  innocence  of  life, 
no  virtue  of  character  can  save  a  man  from  them. 
"  The  creature  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  not  willing- 
ly," "  but  in  hope."  Now,  we  ask,  is  not  this  deliver- 
ance of  man  from  moral  evil,  from  sin  and  its  conse- 
quences, an  achievement  devoutly  to  be  wished  ?  What 
philanthropist,  what  benevolent  heart,  that  earnestly 
desires  the  present  and  eternal  happiness  of  his  fellow 
beings,  but  must  as  ardently  wish  to  see  each  individual 
19* 


222  SALVATION. 

of  the  human  race  delivered  from  sin  ?  1  care  not  what 
his  pecuHar  views,  or  creed,  or  principles,  may  be,  he 
must  wish  to  see  sin  the  great  scourge  of  humanity,  de- 
stroyed. And  so  must  every  human  being  feel  with 
regard  to  himself.  No  good  comes  on  the  whole,  of 
doing  wrong.  That  is  our  great  trouble  when  review- 
ing the  past,  so  we  feel  it  to  be  our  great  danger  in  the 
future.  The  greatest  blessing  we  can  possibly  experi- 
ence is  to  be  delivered  from  it,  because  it  is  the  great- 
est bar  to  our  happiness  here  and  hereafter.  This  we 
believe  to  be  the  precise  object  of  the  mission  of  Christ, 
of  all  that  he  did  and  taught  and  suffered.  "  Thou 
shalt  call  his  name  Jesus,  for  he  shall  save  his  people 
from  their  sins." 

But  our  desires  do  not  stop  here.  We  desire  not 
only  deliverance  from  sin,  but  positive  enjoyment. 
While  we  expect  immortality  we  wish  to  possess  hap- 
piness. This  again  is  of  two  kinds,  that  which  flows 
from  outward  causes,  such  as  are  under  the  immediate 
superintendence  of  Providence,  and  that  which  springs 
from  doing  and  thinking  and  feeling  right.  For  those 
sources  of  happiness  which  are  outward,  we  are  de- 
pendent immediately  on  God,  and  must  be  so  forever. 
But  he  has  hitherto  not  been  wanting  to  us,  and  there- 
fore if  we  are  faithful  to  him  and  lo  ourselves,  we  have 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  ever  will  be.  What  a 
world  he  has  given  us  for  our  abode  !  How  richly  is  it 
stored  with  everything  that  can  minister  to  our  wants  1 
In  the  progressive  stages  of  our  lives,  what  provision  for 
our  improvement  and  our  enjoyment !  In  the  relations 
of  society,  what  scope  for  the  expansion  and   gratifica- 


SALVATION.  Sffisa 

tion  of  the  affections !  He  who  has  already  done  so 
much,  can  in  future  do  anything  for  us  our  happiness 
may  require.  He  who  has  thus  prepared  this  magnifi- 
cent world  for  our  abode,  may,  when  we  have  passed 
through  its  probation,  provide  an  abode  still  more  rich 
and  resplendent,  such  as  eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear 
heard,  nor  the  imagination  of  man  conceived. 

There  is  as  we  before  said,  another  fountain  of  hap- 
piness in  ourselves,  doing  right.  This  depends  upon 
our  own  choice.  And  it  is  equally  rich  in  happiness 
with  the  outward  world.  You  have  all  tasted  it.  You 
have  felt  the  blessedness  of  doing  your  duty.  You  have 
felt  the  satisfaction  of  doing  what  is  just,  in  opposition 
to  what  would  promote  your  own  selfish  interests.  You 
have  felt  the  holy  calm  and  peace  of  a  conscience 
clear  and  at  rest.  You  have  felt  the  glow  of  pleasure 
with  which  every  act  of  kindness  and  charity  and  gen- 
erosity is  forever  after  remembered.  You  have  felt  the 
delight  of  sympathy  with  all  that  is  good  and  pure 
throughout  the  universe.  In  short,  in  your  better  hours 
you  have  felt  a  sympathy  with  the  holy  benevolence  of 
the  blessed  Jesus,  who  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that 
which  was  lost,  and  went  about  doing  good.  It  is  the 
design  of  his  mission,  of  all  that  he  did  and  all  that  he 
taught,  to  confer  on  you  this  happiness,  all  that  satis- 
faction which  springs  from  doing  right,  all  that  felicity 
which  he  enjoyed  on  earth  and  now  enjoys  in  heaven, 
where  he  is  reaping  that  reward  which  was  set  before 
him.  He  would  accomplish  this  by  making  you  like 
himself,  by  rendering  you  good  and  holy. 

Now  we  ask  if  there  be  not  something  rational  and 


224  SALVATION. 

intelligible  in  this  view  of  salvation  ?  Does  it  not  enjist 
your  best  sympathies  and  feelings  ?  Does  it  not  seem 
an  object  worthy  of  the  labors  and  sufferings  of  the 
great  Messiah  ?  Is  it  not  freed  from  the  common  mys- 
tifications in  which  this  plain  and  simple  subject  is  in- 
volved by  the  technical  phrases  of  metaphysical  and 
theological  language  ? 

There  is  I  know  another  view  of  salvation  and  the 
agency  of  Christ  in  bringing  it  about.  We  are  aware 
that  there  are  other  views  which  make  salvation  an  out- 
ward, coarse,  material  affair.  Salvation  by  Christ,  ac- 
cording to  the  Creeds  and  systems  of  divinity  we  have 
been  examining,  consists  not  in  the  moral  and  persua- 
sive power  he  exercises  over  the  mind,  to  reform,  purify 
and  strengthen  it,  to  make  it  forever  to  enjoy  the  plea- 
sure and  happiness  of  righteousness,  but  to  procure 
the  pardon  of  sin  for  a  certain  number.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Westminster  Confession,  "  Christ,  by  his 
obedience  and  death,  did  fully  discharge  the  debt  of 
all  those  that  are  thus  justified,  and  did  make  a  proper, 
real  and  full  satisfaction  to  his  Father's  justice  in  their 
behalf."  God  justifies  men,  says  this  Confession,  "  not 
by  infusing  righteousness  into  them,  but  by  pardoning 
their  sins,  and"  "  accepting  their  persons  as  righteous  : 
not  for  anything  wrought  in  them  or  done  by  them,  but 
for  Christ's  sake  alone ;  not  by  imputing  faith  itself, 
the  act  of  believing  or  any  other  evangelical  obedience 
to  them  as  their  righteousness ;  but  by  imputing  the 
obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ  unto  them,  they 
receiving  and  resting  on  him  and  his  righteousness  by 
faith ;  which  faith  they  have  not  of  themselves ;  it  is 


SALVATION.  225 

the  gift  of  God."  Does  not  such  a  system  of  salvation 
as  this,  outrage  and  disgust  every  reasonable  principle 
of  the  human  mind  ?  Is  it  not  the  preacliing  of  such 
doctrines  as  this,  which  has  driven  hosts  of  the  very 
best  minds,  and  I  fear  I  may  add  hearts  too,  into  the 
ranks  of  infidelity,  or  made  them  listen  coldly  or  super- 
ciliously to  the  Gospel  as  a  tissue  of  paradoxes,  riddles 
and  contradictions,  fit  only  to  amuse  and  beguile  the 
weakest  understandings,  but  entirely  removed  alike  from 
the  regions  of  common  life  and  of  common  sense  ? 

Such  a  doctrine  of  salvation  as  this,  we  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  aver,  to  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of 
mind,  with  the  attributes  of  God,  and  the  nature  of 
man. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  said  that  Christ  saves  men  by 
discharging  their  debt.  Let  us  examine  this  matter  a 
little,  and  see  if  it  be  possible  in  the  nature  of  things. 
What  analogy  is  there  between  sin  and  a  debt?  A 
debt  is  a  sum  of  money,  which  another  may  pay  and 
discharge.  But  is  sin  such  a  thing  as  to  be  separable 
from  the  sinner,  and  thus  be  transferable,  and  be  dis- 
charged by  another  ?  It  is  a  transaction  between  God 
and  the  soul  of  man,  in  which  no  third  person  can  in- 
termeddle. It  is  written  not  only  in  the  book  of  God's 
retribution,  but  it  is  written  in  the  soul  of  the  sinner, 
and  nothing  but  the  tears  of  true  penitence  can  wash 
it  out,  and  when  the  conscience  is  cleansed,  just  so 
soon  does  God  blot  it  out  of  the  book  of  his  remem- 
brance, for  so  it  is  written,  not  once  or  twice,  but  many 
times  in  the  Bible.  He  that  "confesseth  and  forsak- 
elh"  his  sins  shall   find   mercy.     "  If  we   confess  our 


226  SALVATION. 

sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and 
to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness."  The  idea  of 
our  sins  being  discharged  then  hke  a  debt  by  another, 
without  our  repentance,  is  an  impossibility  in  the  na- 
ture of  things,  and  if  we  do  repent  they  are  instantly 
forgiven  by  God  without  the  intervention  of  a  third 
person.  That  third  person  therefore,  in  order  to  bring 
about  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  must  bring  us  to  re- 
pentance. And  this  is  the  very  thing  by  whicL  we 
maintain  that  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  men,  so  far  as 
he  brings  them  to  repentance  for  what  they  have  al- 
ready done  amiss,  and  saves  them  from  committing  sin 
in  future  by  forming  them  to  virtue  and  holiness. 

In  the  second  place,  the  system  of  salvation  by  im- 
puted righteousness,  or  the  vicarious  discharge  of  the 
sins  of  a  part  of  mankind,  makes  it  a  thing  entirely  ar- 
bitrary. If  it  is  "  not  for  anything  wrought  in  them, 
or  done  by  them,"  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is 
imputed  to  them,  then  there  will  be  at  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, no  ground  of  preference  of  one  over  another. 
The  whole  human  race  will  stand  on  the  same  ground. 
The  selection  of  some  for  happiness,  and  others  for 
misery  will  be  perfectly  arbitrary.  There  will  be  no 
reason  why  some  are  received  into  enjoyment,  and 
others  sent  away  into  suffering,  except  the  arbitrary 
will  of  the  judge.  And  can  any  one  believe  that  he 
will  proceed  thus  arbitrarily  ?  No  one  surely,  who  has 
a  single  idea  of  God  that  is  honorable  to  his  character. 
"Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?" 

In  the  third  place,  according  to  this  principle  the 
discipline  of  this  world  as  a  state  of  probation  is  entirely 


SALVATION.  9S7[ 

lost  and  thrown  away.  The  pains  and  pleasures  of 
this  life,  operating  upon  our  moral  nature,  free  to  choose 
as  guided  by  the  understanding,  are  plainly  a  discipline 
to  us,  to  wean  us  from  sin  and  attach  us  to  virtue.  Char- 
acter, according  to  our  ideas  formed  from  experience, 
is  a  thing  of  slow  growth.  It  is  formed  by  a  long  suc- 
cession of  actions.  It  cannot  from  the  very  nature  of 
things  be  communicated  to  a  man.  Actions  cannot 
be  communicated,  and  they  are  what  constitute  char- 
acter. Almighty  power  cannot  communicate  actions 
to  a  man  which  he  never  did.  The  discipline  of  this 
life  as  far  as  we  see,  is  intended  to  make  man  do  cer- 
tain actions  'and  refrain  from  others.  By  doing  one 
class  of  actions  and  avoiding  another,  he  attains  happi- 
ness and  escapes  misery, — and  what  is  this  but  salva- 
tion ?  This  world  seems  to  be  intended  as  a  prepara- 
tion for  another  by  the  formation  of  a  character.  But 
what  is  the  use  of  this  character  and  this  preparation, 
if  it  is  to  be  set  aside  at  last,  and  men  are  to  be  judged 
by  a  character  communicated,  instead  of  the  one  which 
has  been  formed  ?  This  system  of  salvation  by  imputed 
righteousness  contradicts  every  phenomenon  in  the 
moral  world.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of 
things.  It  supposes  what  is  not  true,  that  sin  is  of  the 
nature  of  a  debt,  something  foreign  and  separable  from  . 
the  soul  of  the  sinner  which  may  therefore  be  paid,  ex- 
piated or  discharged  by  another.  A  better  analogy 
would  have  been,  that  it  is  a  poison  taken  into  the  sys- 
tem, which  so  far  as  it  exists,  must  continually  operate 
to  destroy  happiness  and  produce  misery.  It  can  be 
expelled  only  by  repentance  and   reformation,  and  by 


228  SALVATION. 

the  laws  of  our  nature  the  effects  will  remain  even  after 
the  poison  is  expelled  just  in  proportion  to  its  amount, 
and  the  time  it  had  been  injuring  the  system. 

This  system,  we  have  'moreover  seen,  makes  salva- 
tion arbitrary,  partial  and  unjust^  and  therefore,  entirely 
unworthy  of  a  just  and  holy  God.  Besides,  it  over- 
throws a  fundamental  principle  in  our  nature  and  con- 
dition, proclaimed  by  a  thousand  according  voices  with- 
in and  around  us,  that  we  are  in  a  state  of  probation, 
preparing  by  what  we  do,  forming  a  character,  for  our 
whole  future  existence.  This  theory  entirely  destroys 
all  connection  between  this  life  and  another. 

This  leads  us  to  speak  of  another  view  of  salvation 
by  Christ,  which  seems  to  us  to  be  equally  erroneous. 
It  is  said  that  salvation  by  Christ  consists  in  restoring 
the  ruin  by  the  fall.  A  parallel  is  drawn,  based  on  a 
few  passages  of  Scripture,  between  what  Adam  did 
against  us,  and  what  Christ  did  for  us.  And  what  was 
the  injury  which  Adam  inflicted  on  his  posterity  ac- 
cording to  this  system  ?  He  ruined  their  nature,  so 
vitiated  their  moral  constitution,  that  they  are  incapa- 
ble of  willing  or  doing  anything  good  and  acceptable 
to  God.  Now  we  ask,  how  could  what  Christ  did  and 
suffered  and  taught,  restore  the  natures  of  men  who 
lived  and  died  ages  before  he  was  born  ?  To  have  done 
away  and  counteracted  the  effects  of  the  sin  of  Adam, 
it  should  have  restored  the  nature  of  the  posterity  of 
Adam  before  they  began  to  act,  and  have  given  them 
the  power  of  acting  right,  of  which  according  to  this 
system  they  were  brought  into  the  world  destitute. 
The  work  of  Christ  did  not  counteract  the  effects  of 


SALVATION.  229 

the  fall  of  Adam,  assuming  for  argument  sake  that  the 
fall  of  Adam  did  affect  the  nature  of  his  posterity  as  is 
asserted,  for  they  came  into  the  world  and  acted  and 
formed  characters  under  this  moral  inability  to  do  good 
'  and. right.  The  work  of  Christ  did  not  interpose  so 
far  as  to  give  them  a  fair  moral  probation,  for  they  could 
do  nothing  but  evil.  They  were  under  the  necessity 
from  the  first  of  sinning  and  suffering  its  punishment, 
laying  up  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath.  They  were 
deprived,  according  to  this  hypothesis,  of  the  power  of 
doing  anything  that  is  good,  and  of  course  of  enjoying 
the  happiness  and  the  good  consequences  of  it.  We 
ask  again,  w^hat  effect  could  that  which  Christ  did  and 
suffered  have  had  to  change  and  restore  the  natures  of 
men  who  lived  and  died  ages  before  he  was  born  ? 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  the  sufferings  and  obedience 
of  Christ  were  intended  to  have  an  effect  on  God,  to 
induce  him  to  remedy  the  effects  of  the  fall.  We  an- 
swer in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  an  imputation  on  the 
character  of  God,  to  suppose  that  he  needed  to  be 
moved  by  any  other  being  to  do  what  was  right  and 
expedient  in  itself.  This  is  representing  some  other 
being  as  more  wise  and  more  benevolent  than  God, 
which  to  my  mind  seems  little  short  of  impiety.  In  the 
second  place  we  say,  the  remedy  was  not  applied  in  the 
right  place.  To  have  made  the  work  of  Christ  com- 
mensurate vi^ith  the  injury  of  Adam,  we  ought  at  our 
birth  or  creation  to  have  been  restored  exactly  to  that 
condition  which  we  should  have  occupied  had  Adam 
never  sinned,  to  the  condition  of  power  to  do  good  as 
well  as  evil.  But  according  to  this  system,  man  has 
20 


230  SALVATION. 

no  such  power,  every  act  in  his  natural  state  is  wrong 
and  deserving  God's  damnation.  This  supposed  work 
of  Christ  in  inducing  God  to  change  men's  natures,  is 
not  commensurate  with  the  supposed  work  of  Adam  in 
ruining  them.  One  is  as  hypothetical  and  imaginary 
as  the  other.  But  it  may  be  rejoined,  though  God  may 
not  be  induced  by  what  Christ  has  done  to  restore  the 
ruin  of  the  fall  in  this  world,  he  may  on  the  confines  of 
another,  and  by  a  transfer,  an  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness,  may  restore  man  to  what  he  would  have 
been  had  Adam  never  sinned.  We  can  only  answer, 
that  if  he  extends  it  to  one  he  must  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple extend  it  to  all,  and  all  be  made  happy  alike.  But 
this,  all  who  maintain  this  system  most  strenuously  de- 
ny ;  it  is  moreover,  utterly  improbable  from  all  we  know 
of  God,  or  see  of  his  character  and  providence.  All 
experience  and  all  revelation  assure  us,  that  all  men  are 
in  a  state  of  probation  and  are  to  be  judged  according 
to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body. 

One  more  specimen  of  what  we  regard  as  erroneous 
views  of  salvation,  and  we  shall  have  finished  this  part 
of  the  subject.  It  is  often  said,  with  great  flippancy 
and  great  apparent  smartness,  "  Your  salvation  will 
never  do  for  me.  I  cannot  trust  myself  in  the  hands  of 
your  Saviour.  I  must  have  an  Almighty  Saviour." 
We  answer  that  this  remark  is  more  flippant  and  smart, 
than  sensible  or  conclusive.  We  ask  in  return,  for  what 
purpose  do  you  require  an  Almighty  Saviour  ?  To  res- 
cue you  from  the  hands  of  God  ?  You  are  in  his  hands, 
and  must  forever  be.  No  one  can  deliver  you  from  him. 
Hear  what  the  Saviour,  Christ,  says :  "  My  Father  is 


SALVATION.  231 

greater  Uian  all,  and  none  is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of 
my  Father's  hands."  This  remark  instead  of  invalidat- 
ing our  views,  merely  shows  the  misapprehension  of 
those  who  make  it  of  what  Christian  salvation  is,  and 
how  it  is  effected.  That  remark  goes  upon  the  suppo- 
sition, that  Christ  saves  men  just  as  some  giant  would 
rescue  a  man  from  the  hands  of  robbers,  or  snatch  him 
from  a  dwelling  in  flames,  from  a  wreck  on  the  seas,  or 
from  the  walls  of  a  dungeon.  They  seem  to  suppose 
that  Christ  saves  men  by  drawing  them  out  of  the  fires 
of  a  local,  material  hell,  where  they  have  been  cast  by 
an  angry  and  incensed  God.  In  these  gross,  material 
conceptions  of  salvation,  they  entirely  forget  that  salva- 
tion is  a  state  of  the  mind,  not  the  place  in  which  the 
mind  is.  The  hinderance  of  happiness  is  in  the  mind, 
not  out  of  it.  It  is  the  criminal  when  suffering  deep  in 
his  soul  the  horrors  of  remorse  and  so  absorbed  in  his 
crime  that  he  can  think  of  nothing  else,  any  more  hap- 
py when  under  the  broad  and  beautiful  heaven,  sur- 
rounded by  the  luxuriance  of  this  magnificent  earth, 
than  when  in  the  silent  recesses  of  his  dungeon  ? 

Besides,  this  coarse,  material  conception  of  salvation 
supposes  two  things  that  are  false  :  one,  that  any  other 
being  can  be  more  powerful  than  God  Almighty  ;  and 
another,  that  we  are,  or  can  be  safer  or  happier  in  any 
other  hands  than  in  those  of  our  heavenly  Father,  whose 
very  nature  is  love,  and  who  pitieth  us  as  a  father  piti- 
eth  his  children.  No  !  The  difficulty  is  in  our  own 
souls.  It  is  there  that  we  must  be  saved  by  being  de- 
livered from  the  power  of  in-dwelling  sin.  There  is  no 
want  of  readiness  on  the  part  of  God  to  bestow  happi 


232  SALVATION. 

ness  on  men,  as  far  as  they  deserve  it,  or  as  far  as  they 
have  prepared  themselves  to  receive  it.  He  cannot 
make  a  bad  man  happy,  either  according  to  the  laws  of 
his  moral  government,  or  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
mind.  The  vicious,  degraded  mind,  retaining  its  identi- 
ty, is  incapable  of  receiving  happiness,  as  much  as  a 
diseased  man  is  incapable  of  receiving  ease  and  comfort. 
Milton,  the  poet  of  rehgion  and  of  human  nature,  has  in 
the  character  of  Satan  set  this  subject  in  its  true  light. 
The  apostate  exclaims  :  — 

"  Me  miserable !   wliicli  -way  shall  I  fly 
Infinite  wrath  and  infinite  despair? 
Which  Avay  I  fly  is  Hell ;  myself  am -Hell  \ 
And,  in  the  lowest  deep,  a  lower  deep 
Still  threatening  to  devour  me  opens  wide. 
To  which  the  Hell  I  suffer  seems  a  Heaven." 

That  state  of  the  mind  has  been  brought  on  by  vol- 
untary action,  by  abuse  of  the  free  will.  It  can  be  re- 
moved only  J^y  a  change  of  tliat  action.  It  can  be  only 
by  repentance,  reformation,  and  obedience.  Man  must 
be  saved  from  sin  by  voluntarily  changing  the  action  of 
his  mind.  You  perceive  then,  that  almightiness  is  not 
the  quality  in  the  Saviour  demanded,  is  not  the  indis- 
pensable requisite  in  salvation  from  sin.  Were  that  the 
fact,  is  there  not  omnipotence  enough  in  God  to  effect 
it  ?  Certainly,  all  must  confess  that  there  is.  But  this 
is  not  the  appropriate  agency,  or  God  our  heavenly  Fa- 
ther would  choose  to  exercise  it.  Almighty  and  irre- 
sistible power,  exercised  upon  man's  mind,  would  de- 
stroy his  free  agency.  And  God  chooses  to  save  men 
through  their  free  agency,  not  against  it.     Almighty  and 


SALVATION.  233 

irresistible  power  exerted  on  man's  will,  destroys  the 
morality  of  iiis  actions,  makes  them  neither  good  nor 
bad,  deserving  neither  praise  nor  blame,  reward  nor  pun- 
ishment. They  are  mechanical.  He  is  a  mere  ma- 
chine. His  actions  are  no  longer  his  own,  but  those  of 
the  Being  of  whom  he  is  the  passive  instrument. 

What  you  compel  a  man  to  do  by  irresistible  power, 
makes  him  neither  better  nor  worse.  He  can  become 
worse  only  by  exercising  his  own  choice,  so  he  can  re- 
cover and  become  better  only  by  exercising  the  same 
choice.  Choosing  bad  actions  is  perdition,  choosing 
good  actions  is  salvation.  It  is  plainly  not  the  purpose 
of  God  to  save  men  against  their  will,  but  through  their 
will.  All  the  salvation  then,  of  which  men  are  capable 
from  the  very  nature  of  things,  in  a  moral  point  of  view, 
is  by  persuasion,  instruction,  motive,  inducement,  of- 
fered to  the  understanding,  and  through  the  understand- 
ing to  the  will.  This  principle  may  be  illustrated  in  a 
thousand  ways.  Suppose  a  man  is  intemperate.  How 
can  he  be  saved  and  made  a  better  man  ?  Suppose 
God,  by  an  act  of  his  almighty  power,  destroys  his  ca- 
pacity of  excess,  or  annihilates  all  desire  of  stimulating 
drinks.  The  man  is  saved  from  intemperance.  But 
how  is  he  saved  ?  By  ceasing  to  be  a  moral  agent  in 
this  particular.  He  is  no  better  than  he  was  before. 
To  be  saved  in  a  moral  and  Christian  sense  of  the  term, 
he  must  change  his  course  of  conduct,  still  possessing 
the  same  powers.  But  how  must  he  change  ?  It  must 
not  be  by  a  foreign,  irresistible  force,  as  we  have  seen, 
for  that  would  destroy  the  moral  character  of  his  actions. 
He  must  be  saved,  if  saved  at  all,  by  motives,  persua- 
20* 


234  SALVATION. 

sion,  knowledge,  inducement,  operating  through  the  un- 
derstanding upon  the  will.  He  who  should  thus  per- 
suade him,  would  be  his  saviour,  in  the  only  sense  in 
which  he  is  capable  of  moral  salvation. 

What  is  true  of  this  particular  case  is  true  of  all 
moral  salvation.  It  can  take  place  only  through  the 
understanding  and  the  will,  by  persuasion,  instruction, 
motive,  inducement.  Almighty  power,  irresistible  force, 
is  not  the  requisite  to  these.  Nay,  it  is  inconsistent  with 
them.  The  exercise  of  it  would  destroy  them  all. 
Force  and  persuasion  are  contradictory  to  each  other. 
Where  force  begins,  there  persuasion  ends,  and  free 
agency,  and  moral  accountability,  good  or  ill  desert,  end 
with  it. 

You  perceive  then,  that  the  flippant  remark  which 
many  of  you  have  often  heard,  has  more  of  smartness 
in  it  than  point,  and  shows  more  ignorance  than  good 
sense.  We  have  seen  that  almighty  power,  resistless 
force,  so  far  from  being  necessary,  are  positively  ex- 
cluded, from  the  very  nature  of  the  work  to  be  per- 
formed. Persuasion,  instruction,  motive,  inducement, 
being  the  only  means  of  salvation  which  the  nature  of 
the  case  and  of  man  admits  ;  he  who  can  exercise  these 
in  the  most  perfect  manner,  has  all  the  powers  and  at- 
tributes which  the  nature  of  the  case  requires  or  admits. 
Such  powers  and  attributes  had  Jesus  Christ,  by  the 
gift  and  endowment  of  God. 

God  surely  is  almighty  enough  to  save  all  mankind,  if 
mere  power  were  all  that  were  requisite.  He  might  save 
all  mankind  from  sin  by  his  resistless  power.  But  it 
would  not  be  such  a  kind  of  salvation  as  the  case  of  man 


SALVATION.  235 

requires.  It  would  not  be  a  moral  salvation.  It  would 
be  a  mechanical  salvation.  It  would  reduce  men  to 
mere  machines,  destroy  tlie  moral  character  of  their  ac- 
tions, and  in  saving  men  from  sin,  make  virtue,  which 
consists  in  the  free  choice  of  good  when  evil  was  equal- 
ly in  the  power  of  choice,  impossible. 

A  part  of  salvation  consists  in  inducing  men  to  choose 
and  perform  good  actions,  so  as  to  form  a  good  and  ho- 
ly character.  Mere  forje,  destroying  the  freedom  of  the 
will,  would  defeat  then,  instead  of  promoting  salvation. 
We  see  therefore  why  God  permits  that  which  is  other- 
wise so  inexplicable,  so  much  moral  evil  in  the  world. 
He  will  not  break -in  upon  man's  free  agency.  It  is 
necessary  to  the  very  existence  of  all  the  goodness  there 
is  in  being.  He  therefore  bears  with  the  evil  for  the 
sake  of  the  good. 

You  perceive  then -the  utter  futility  of  that  common 
reasoning  that  you  hear,  which  argues  because  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  men  he  must  therefo.'-e  be  an 
almighty  being  rnd  one  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity. 
We  have  seen  by  an  examination  of  the  nature  of  things, 
that  t!ie  exercise  of  almighty  power  is  excluded  by  the 
very  nature  of  the  work  he  has  to  do.  Persuasion,  in- 
struction, motive,  inducement,  it  does  not  require  al- 
mighty power  or  infinite  attributes  of  any  kind  to  im- 
part, and  the  very  constitution  of  nian's  moral  nature 
forbids  the  use  of  any  other.  It  is  sufficient  then  that 
the  Saviour  of  men  should  be  endowed  and  furnished 
by  God  with  all  the  powers  and  means  to  instruct,  per- 
suade, move,  and  induce.  We  believe  and  think  that 
the  uniform  representations  of  the  Scriptures  asser,  that 


236  SALVATION. 

these  were  the  very  powers  and  means  which  God  be- 
stowed on  Christ.  We  believe  that  God  conferred  on 
Christ  those  powers  and  means  which  were  exactly  com- 
mensurate with  the  work  he  was  to  perform,  that  of  sav- 
^ng  men  from  their  sins.  We  see  no  evidence  in  Scrip- 
ture that  he  possessed  these  powers  and  means  inhe- 
rently. We  see,  on  the  other  hand,  abundant  evidence 
and  assertion  that  they  were  all  derived  and  communi- 
cated. "All  things,"  says  he,  "are  delivered  unto  me 
of  my  Father."  "  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing." 
"  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  I  speak  not  of  myself." 
"  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works." 
"  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  power."  "  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  mea- 
sure unto  him." 

From  the  considerations  we  have  now  gone  through, 
we  are  able  I  hope  to  understand  more  clearly  the  na- 
ture of  Christian  salvation,  or  of  salvation  by  Christ. 
And  we  are  now  prepared,  I  trust,  to  answer  the  follow- 
ing important  questions  :  What  is  it  to  be  saved  ? 
From  what  are  men  saved  ?  Who  is  the  Saviour  of  men  ? 
How  does  Christ  etiect  men's  salvation  ? 

First,  what  is  it  to  be  saved  ?  If  our  investigations 
into  the  nature  of  man  have  resulted  in  the  discovery  of 
truth,  it  is  to  be  induced  to  forsake  sin,  and  practise 
goodness,  to  leave  off  doing  wrong  actions  and  to  do 
right  actions  in  future,  to  repent  of  what  we  have  done 
amiss,  and  in  time  to  come  to  avoid  those  evil  actions 
we  have  before  done,  and  those  which  we  have  never 
done,  but  which  we  are  in  danger  of  doing.  This  is  to 
be  in  a  state  of  safety,  in  a  state  of  salvation.     This  is 


SALVATION.  237 

largely  described  in  the  Scriptures.  Isaiah  displays  it 
in  his  exhortations.  "  Wash  ye,  make  you  clean  ;  put 
away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine  eyes ; 
cease  to  do  evil ;  learn  to  do  well ;  seek  judgment ;  re- 
lieve the  oppressed  ;  judge  the  fatherless  ;  plead  for  the 
widow."  "  Though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall 
be  as  white  as  snow  ;  though  they  be  red  like  crimson, 
they  shall  be  as  wool."  "  There  is  now  no  condem- 
nation to  them  wiiich  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit ;"  that  is,  who  avoid 
sin,  and  practise  goodness.  According  to  this  idea,  true 
Christians  are  said  to  be  already  saved.  "  According  to 
his  mercy  he  saved  us."  True  Christians  were  in  a 
state  of  salvation.  Salvation  is  then  a  state  of  freedom 
from  the  guilt  of  sin  and  the  habit  of  sin,  and  is  the 
practice  of  goodness,  begun  here  and  perfected  in  hea- 
ven. It  is  eternal,  final  salvation  ;  for  moral  evil  is  the 
only  evil,  which  can  accompany  or  follow  us  into  an- 
other world.  All  other  evils  and  sources  of  unhappiness 
must  cease,  and  be  destroyed  at  death. 

Second,  from  what  are  we  saved  ?  We  are  saved 
from  sin  ;  not  merely  from  punishment,  but  from  sinful 
habit,  from  a  state  of  moral  degradation  and  debase- 
ment. The  evil  of  sin  is  not  so  much  that  it  is  written 
in  God's  book  of  account  against  us,  as  that  it  is  writ- 
ten in  our  own  souls,  enters  into  and  as  it  were  pollutes 
our  spiritual  nature,  like  poison  or  a  disease.  While  it 
is  in  us,  and  so  far  as  it  is  in  us,  we  are  in  perdition, 
we  are  in  hell,  or  hell  is  in  us.  That  Saviour,  who  should 
interpose  to  expiate  our  sins,  as  it  is  called,  and  should 
procure  them  to  be  expunged  from  the  records  of  hea- 


238  SALVATION. 

ven,  would  still  do  us  no  good,  for  they  would  still  be 
in  us,  and  as  far  as  they  existed,  would  destroy  or  pre- 
vent our  happiness.  He  must  bring  us  to  repentance 
and  amendment,  and  then  we  shall  begin  to  recover 
from  our  disease,  and  again  enjoy  health  and  happiness. 
And  as  fast  as  we  rid  ourselves  of  them,  so  fast  they 
disappear  and  vanish  from  the  book  of  God.  For  what 
says  the  Scripture  ?  "  But  if  the  wicked  will  turn  from 
all  his  sins  that  he  hath  committed,  and  keep  all  my 
statutes,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall 
surely  live,  he  shall  not  die.  All  his  transgressions,  that 
he  hath  committed,  they  shall  not  be  mentioned  unto 
him ;  in  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done,  he  shall 
live.  Have  I  any  pleasure  at  all  that  the  wicked  should 
die,  saith  the  Lord  God,  and  not  that  he  should  return 
from  his  ways  and  live  ?"  He  that  "  confesseth  and 
forsaketh"  his  sins  shall  find  mercy.  "Her  sins,"  said 
Christ  of  the  weeping  penitent,  "  which  are  many,  are 
forgiven."  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the 
unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him  return  unto 
the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him,  and  our 
God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon." 

We  are  able  to  answer  the  third  question :  Who  is 
the  Saviour  of  men  ?  We  can  answer  it  in  the  very 
words  of  Scripture,  the  words  of  the  apostle  Peter. 
"  The  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesus,  whom  ye 
slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree,  him  hath  ^od  exalted  to  be 
a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give  repentance  unto  Is- 
rael,-and  forgiveness  of  sins."  But  is  he  the  original 
cause,  the  first  Mover  of  our  salvation  ?  By  no.  means. 
He  was  raised  up  by  God,  and  exalted  to  be  a  Prince 


SALVATION.  539 

and  a  Saviour.  He  then  is  the  instrumental  cause  of 
our  salvation,  and  God  is  the  original  cause.  God  is 
our  Saviour  in  the  primary  and  Christ  in  a  secondary 
sense. 

All  the  powers  by  which  Christ  saves  men,  were  com- 
municated to  him  by  God,  they  were  not  original  and 
inherent.  He  was  by  the  riglit  hand  of  God  exalted  to 
be  a  Saviour,  that  is,  received  from  God  the  qualifica- 
tions and  means  to  achieve  man's  salvation,  to  give  men 
repentance  and  forgiveness  of  sins,  to  produce  in  them 
penitence  and  holiness. 

This  brings  us  to  the  fourth  question  we  proposed  to 
answer:  What  are  those  powers  and  means  which  God 
conferred  on  Christ,  and  in  virtue  of  which  "  he  is  able 
to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  who  come  unto  God  by 
him  ;"  how  does  Christ  save  men,  or  how  does  God 
save  men,  through  Christ  ? 

Let  the  apostle  Peter  answer  this  question  :  "  God 
having  raised  up  his  Son  Jesus,  sent  him  to  bless  you,  in 
turning  away  every  one  of  you  from  his  iniquities."  It 
is  a  moral  salvation  then  which  he  is  to  effect.  It  is  a 
change  in  human  conduct,  from  doing  wrong  to  doing 
right.  And  does  not  this  exactly  correspond  to  the  re- 
sult of  our  investigation  into  the  nature  of  man,  and  the 
kind  of  salvation  he  was  capable  of  receiving  ?  How 
does  he  bring  about  this  change  in  their  conduct  ?  By 
the  exertion  of  resistless  power  ?  That  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  their  free  agency  and  the  moral  character 
of  their  actions.  The  only  means,  which  their  moral 
constitution  will  admit,  are  persuasion,  instruction,  mo- 
tive, inducement,  offered  to  the  understandina:  of  men, 


240  SALVATION. 

and  through  their  understanding  to  their  will.  Nothing 
is  good  or  evil  in  man,  or  of  good  or  ill  desert,  wiiich 
does  not  pass  through  the  understanding,  is  perceived 
by  it  to  be  good  or  evil,  and  is  embraced  or  rejected  as 
such  by  the  will.  The  idea  of  making  men  good  by  ir- 
resistible power,  almighty  influence  of  any  kind,  is  im- 
possible. It  destroys  the  very  nature  of  goodness,  which 
is,  tliat  it  must  be  the  free  choice  of  right. 

Christ  must  save  us  then,  if  he  save  us  at  all,  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  our  own  nature,  by  persuasion,  in- 
struction, motive,  inducement.  And  is  not  this  the  very 
nature  of  his  Gospel  ?  Is  it  not  all  persuasion,  instruc- 
tion, motive,  inducement?  Christ  saves  us  then  by  his 
Gospel.  Its  wisdom  is  superhuman,  and  carries  with  it 
intuitive  conviction  to  the  mind  of  man.  And  God  gave 
the  Gospel  to  Christ.  "  I  have  given  unto  them,"  says 
he,  in  his  prayer,  "  the  words  which  thou  gavest  me." 
"  My  doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me." 
"  Sanctify  them  through  tliy  truth  ;  thy  word  is  truth." 
"  The  grace  of  God,  that  bringeth  salvation,  hath  ap- 
peared to  all  men,  teaclii ng  us  that  denying  ungodliness 
and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly,  righteously, 
and  godly,  in  this  present  world."  "  I  am  not  ashamed 
of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  for  it  is  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth."  "  Being 
born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible, 
by  the  word  of  God,  wliich  liveth  and  abideth  forever." 

Christ  saves  men  by  his  perfect  character,  for  it  in- 
structs and  persuades  by  the  most  powerful  of  all  means, 
example.  It  likewise  confirms  the  Gospel,  and  gives  it 
power  over  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men.     It  leaves  us 


SALVATION.  241 

an  example  that  this  should  follow  his  steps,  and  then  to 
us  there  is  no  condemnation. 

He  saves  us  by  his  crucifixion  and  his  resurrection,  for 
by  devoting  himself  to  death,  to  sustain  the  declaration 
"  I  am  the  Christ,"  he  sealed  the  truth  of  his  Gospel 
with  his  blood.  By  his  resurrection  he  made  immor- 
tality sure,  and  brought  the  whole  weight  of  eternal  con- 
sequences to  bear  upon  the  alternatives,  the  promises 
and  the  threatenings,  which  his  Gospel  presents,  hold- 
ing out  to  those  who  by  a  patient  continuance  in  the 
ways  of  well  doing,  seek  for  glory,  honor  and  immor- 
tality, eternal  life  ;  but  to  those  that  are  contentious 
and  obey  not  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  in- 
dignation and  wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish  upon  every 
soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil. 

We  have  now  reached  the  great  object  and  end  of 
our  inquiry,  and  conclude  that  Christ  saves  men,  not  by 
expiating  their  sins,  but  by  saving  them  from  their  sins, 
not  by  miraculously  changing  their  natures,  but  by 
changing  their  moral  action  through  instruction,  persua- 
sion, motive,  inducement ;  not  by  overpowering  the  will, 
but  by  exciting  it  to  tight  exercise.  Does  not  salvation 
by  Christ  then  appear  to  be  a  very  simple,  intelligible 
matter,  after  all  the  mystery  that  has  been  poured  over 
it?  Does  it  not  appear  in  admirable  consistency  with 
all  the  laws  of  the  human  mind?  Does  it  not  enable 
you  to  settle  a  question  of  infinite  moment  to  each  one 
of  you,  viz.  whether  you  are  saved  or  not ;  whether  you 
are  in  a  state  of  salvation  or  perdition  ?  Have  you  been 
persuaded,  moved,  induced  by  the  Gospel  to  forsake 
sin,  and  practise  goodness,  or  to  avoid  that  sin  you  were 
2-1 


242  SALVATION. 

in  danger  of  committing;  then  you  have  experienced, 
and  are  experiencing  Christian  salvation.  If  not,  no 
matter  what  you  believe,  or  whether  you  believe  no- 
thing, you  are  in  a  state  of  perdition.  For  the  sinner 
must  suffer  as  long  as  he  continues  to  sin.  "  Christ," 
in  the  words  of  the  apostle,  "  became  the  author  of 
eternal  salvation  to  them,"  and  them  only,  "  that  obey 
him." 


LECTURE   X. 


REGENERATION. 

1  PETER,  I.  23—25. 

"Being  born  again,  not  of  corrdptible  seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, ET  the  word  of  god,  WHICH  LIVETH  AND  ABIDETH 
FOREVER.  FOR  ALL  FLESH  IS  AS  GRASS,  AND  ALL  THE  GLORY  OF 
MAN  AS  THE  FLOWER  OF  GRASS.  THE  GRASS  WITHERETH,  AND  THE 
FLOWER  THEREOF  FALLETH  AWAY :  BUT  THE  WORD  OF  THE  LORD 
ENDURETH  forever.  and  THIS  13  THE  WORD,  WHICH  BY  THE 
GOSPEL  IS  PREACHED  UNTO  YOU." 

It  will  be  the  object  of  this  discourse  to  examine  and 
explain  the  doctrine  of  regeneration,  as  it  stands  in  the 
Scriptures,  in  the  Creeds  and  systems  of  men,  and  as 
displayed  in  the  phenomena  of  Christian  experience. 
The  main  point  to  be  kept  in  view  throughout  the 
whole,  and  which  it  is  our  chief  purpose  to  settle  is, 
whether  in  this  process  the  mind  of  man  is  active  or 
passive,  whether  it  be  effected  by  a  power  without  or 
beyond  the  mind  in  which  the  mind  is  acted  upon  ;  or 
whether  it  be  an  achievement,  in  which  the  mind  is  ac- 
tive, uses  its  own  powers  and  that  assistance  which  God 
grants  to  all  our  actions,  in  the  use  of  the  means  which 
he  has  appointed.  We  wish  to  know  if  the  reason  why 
one   is  regenerated  and  another  is  not,  be  a  neglect  on 


244  REGENERATION. 

his  part  to  exercise  a  power  which  he  possessed  but 
failed  to  use,  or  the  fleglect  or  failure  on  the  part  of 
God  to  communicate  to  him  tl^se  special  influences  of 
his  Spirit  or  power,  which  are  necessary  to  control  the 
will  and  change  the  character. 

It  follows  as  a  necessary  part  of  that  system  of  Divin- 
ity which  we  have  been  so  long  examining,  and  which 
contains  the  doctrine  of  the  fall  of  man,  the  entire  cor- 
ruption of  his  nature,  the  consequent  sinfulness  of  every 
act,  and  his  entire  inability  to  will  or  to  do  anything 
good  and  acceptable  to  God,  that  the  mind  with  its  or- 
dinary powers  and  assistance,  cannot  originate  any  act 
or  train  of  action,  which  is  either  good  in  itself,  or  leads 
to  any  good.  It  follows  then  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, that  as  in  punishment  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  God 
made  the  natures  of  his  posterity  in  such  a  way  that 
they  can  do  nothing  good,  so  nothing  but  an  act  of  the 
same  Almighty  power  can  change  that  nature  so  as  to 
give  it  even  the  capacity  to  do  anything  good  and  ac- 
ceptable to  God. 

The  state  of  man  by  nature  is  thus  expressed  in  the 
tenth  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. "  The  condition  of  man,  after  the  fall  of  Adam 
is  such,  that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself  by  his 
own  natural  strength  and  good  works,  to  faith  and  call- 
ing upon  God :  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do 
good  works,  pleasant .  and  acceptable  to  God,  without 
the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us  that  we  may 
have  a  good  will,  and  working  with  us,  when  we  have 
that  good  will." 

In  the  Westminster  Confession  it  is  said,  "  All  those 


REGKNEUATION.  245 

whom  God  liatli  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only, 
he  is  pleased  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effec- 
tually to  call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  out  of  that  state 
of  sin  and  death,  in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grace 
and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their  minds 
spiritually  and  savingly  to  understand  the  things  of  God  ; 
taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them 
an  heart  of  flesh  ;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  Al- 
mighty power  determining  them  to  that  which  is  good  ; 
and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ ;  yet  so  as 
they  come  most  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace. 
This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace 
alone,  not  from  anything  at  all  foreseen  in  man  ;  who  is 
altogether  passive  therein,  until  being  quickened  and 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to 
answer  this  call,  and  to  embrace  tlie  grace  offered  and 
conveyed  in  it.  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  re- 
generated and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who 
worketh  when  and  where  and  how  he  pleaseth.  So  also 
are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word  ;  others, 
not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  minis- 
try of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations 
of  the  Spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  unto  Christ, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  saved  ;  mgch  less,  can  men  not 
professing  the  Christian  religion  be  saved  in  any  other 
way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature  and  the  law  of  that 
religion  they  do  profess ;  and  to  assert  and  maintain 
that  they  may,  is  very  pernicious,  and  to  be  detested." 
Lest  it  should  be  said  that  we  are  combatting  the  dog- 
21* 


246 


RBGENKKATION. 


mas  of  a  by-gone  age,  I  would  remind  you  thai  the  doc- 
trines we  have  stated,  are  found  in  the  Public  Standards 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  Articles  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  this  country. 
I  will  likewise  subjoin  some  of  the  statements  of  the 
ablest  defenders  of  this  system  at  different  periods. 
President  Edwards  of  Princeton,  has  the  following  ex- 
pression in  his  works.  "  So  long  as  men  are  in  their 
natural  state,  they  not  only  have  no  good  thing,  but  it 
is  impossible  they  should  have  or  do  any  good  thing." 
Man  is  "  not  susceptible  of  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  because  they  are  not  discerned  by  means  of  any 
principle  in  nature,  but  altogether  by  a  principle  that  is 
divine,  something  introduced  by  the  grace  of  God's 
Holy  Spirit,  which  is  above  all  that  is  natural."  •'  The 
power  of  the  enmity  of  natural  man  against  God  is  so 
great  that  it  is  insuperable  -by  any  finite  power." 
"  Natural  men  cannot  overcome  their  own  enmity,  let 
them  strive  never  so  much  with  their  own  hearts." 
Thomas  Scott,  whose  commentary  on  the  Bible  has  been 
circulated  so  industriously  and  so  widely  in  this  country 
and  in  England,  has  in  one  of  his  notes  the  following 
passages  :  "Man  by  nature  is  unholy,  and  cannot  relish 
or  even  discern  the  excellency  of  true  religion."  "■  He 
can  neither  repent,  submit,  believe,  love  nor  obey  ;  but 
must  remain  a  rebel,  an  enemy."  "  He  must  be  in- 
wardly and  effectually  changed,  before  he  can  under- 
stand the  nature  and  glory  of  the  Gospel."  "The  new 
birth  must  precede  all  the  actions  of  the  spiritual  life  ; 
till  that  has  taken  place,  the  man  can  neither  see,  hear, 
speak,  walk,  nor  work  in  a  spiritual  manner."     In  this 


REGKNEUATION.  247 

new' birth  "  a  real  creation  is  effected  by  Wis  [God's] 
omnipotence.  The  regenerated  sinner  has  the  substance 
of  all  holy  dispositions  communicated  to  his  soul."  In 
the  sermons  of  Henry  Martyn,  late  missionary  to  the  East, 
a  widely  received  writer,  is  found  the  following  passage  : 
"  There  is  in  the  dead  body  no  power  to  return  to  life  ; 
neither  is  there  in  the  soul  any  ability  to  attain  a  spirit- 
ual life,  or  the  exercise  of  holy  affection  toward  God." 
"  There  is  in  the  dead  body  no  spark  of  life,  that  time 
or  care  may  fan  into  a  flame  ;  it  will  remain  a  corpse ; 
nothing  but  the  power  of  God  can  raise  it  from  the  dead. 
In  like  manner  there  is  in  the  natural  man  no  latent 
principle  of  spiritual  life  ;"  "  a  change"  iriust  be 
"  wrought  in  him  by  an  eternal  agent,  life  put  into  him 
by  the  Spirit  of  God." 

It  is  useless  any  further  to  multiply  quotations.  The 
import  of  what  we  have  already  given  is  too  plain  to  be 
mistaken.  The  Westminster  Confession  asserts  in  so 
many  words  that  the  soul  of  man  "  is  altogether  passive 
in  regeneration,  that  man  cannot  by  anything  he  can  do 
eve  n  'prepare  hrmself  thereunto,"  that  is,  do  anything 
that  vvHl  make  it  more  proper  for  God  to  regenerate  him 
than  any  other  person  who  has  done  nothing  at  all. 
Some  of  the  private  authorities  we  cited  carry  this  doc- 
trine out  to  a  still  greater  fulness  of  statement.  Ed- 
wards says,  that  there  must  be  "  a  principle  that  is 
divine,  something  introduced  by  the  grace  of  God's 
Holy  Spirit,  which  is  above  all  that  is  natural."  Scott 
says,  in  this  new  birth  "  a  real  creation  is  effected  by 
his  [God's]  omnipotence."  "The  new  birth  must  pre- 
cede all  the  actions  of  the  spiritual  life."     Henry  Mar- 


248  RKGENERATION. 

lyn  says,  "  In  the  natural  man  there  is  no  latent  princi- 
ple of  spiritual  life,  except  there  be  a  superadded  prin- 
ciple from  above,  any  more  than  there  is  life  in  a  dead 
body  ;  for  either  to  return  to  life,  requires  an  effort  of 
the  same  almighty  power." 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  Bible  is  thrown  away  with 
contempt,  notwithstanding  all  that  is  touching,  and 
heavenly,  and  true  in  its  pages,  when  its  cause  is  identi- 
fied with  doctrines  so  paradoxical  and  revolting,  I  was 
going  to  say  inconsistent  with  each  other,  but  I  should 
say  consistent,  horribly  consistent  with  each  other  !  It 
is  a  part  of  one  consistent  system,  which,  stripping  God 
of  mercy  and  man  of  freedom,  reduces  the  whole  uni- 
verse to  a  dreary  despotism,  and  subjects  both  God  and 
man  to  a  relentless  and  inexorable  fate,  which  sweeps 
on,  with  stern  and  irresistible  sway,  over  all  beings  and 
all  events,  through  the  ceaseless  ages  of  duration. 

We  object  to  this  doctrine  of  the  mind  being  passive 
in  regeneration,  that  it  is  an  atrocious  libel  on  the  moral 
character  of  God,  and  if  true,  destroys  his  attributes 
of  justice  and  goodness,  makes  it  impossible  for  us  to 
love  or  adore  him,  and  absolves  us  from  all  allegiance 
to  his  throne,  except  that  of  mere  power  and  compul- 
sion. It  represents  him  as  requiring  from  men,  what 
he  does  not  give  them  power  to  perform,  and  then  pun- 
ishing them  with  the  utmost  severity  because  they  do 
not  comply.  It  is  representing  him  as  punishing  man- 
kind because  he  did  not  change  their  natures.  Those 
who  are  passed  by  and  left  to  perish  in  their  sins,  suf- 
fer forever  in  consequence,  not  of  their  own  neglect  to 
do  anything  which  they  might  have  done,  but  in  con- 


REGENERATION.  249 

sequence  of  the  neglect  of  God  to  do  what  he  alone 
could  do  ;  for  this  doctrine  asserts  that  before  regene- 
ration every  act  is  sinful,  and  it  is  impossible  that  it 
should  be  otherwise,  and -therefore  there  is  nothing, 
wMch  a  man  can  do,  which  will  have  the  least  effect  in 
inducing  God  to  change  his  nature.  Now  this  is  the 
very  essence  of  a  tyranny,  and  whoever  proves  that  to 
be  the  character  of  the  God  of  the  Scriptures,  proves  it 
to  be  a  virtue  instead  of  a  crime  to  reject  them  as  a 
standard  of  morality  and  religion  ;  makes  it  a  virtue  to 
turn  to  that  Deity,  which  the  mind  forms  to  itself,  out 
of  the  elements  of  truth  and  beauty  and  goodness, 
which  it  finds  in  its  own  nature,  and  scattered  through- 
out the  universe. 

We  object,  in  the  second  place,  to  this  system  of  pas- 
sive regeneration  that  it  is  inconsistent  with,  and  destroys 
the  moral  nature  of  man.  It  makes  man  in  the  state  of 
nature,  to  be  not  in  a  state  of  probation.  He  has  no 
choice  between  good  and  evil.  He  cannot,  from  the 
very  constitution  of  his  nature,  choose  good.  He  can, 
and  must,  only  choose  evil.  And  therefore,  although 
he  may  do  that  which  is  followed  with  evil  conse- 
quences, it  cannot  be  charged  as  sin  or  guilt  upon  the 
agent,  because  sin  is  a  conscious,  voluntary  choice  of 
evil,  when  good  was  equally  in  our  power.  It  would  be 
precisely  as  unjust  in  God  to  call  such  an  one  to  account, 
and  punish  him  for  his  evil  actions,  as  to  punish  the 
beasts  of  prey  for  the  exhibition  of  that  very  ferocity 
which  he  himself  has  made  a  part  of  their  natures. 

So,  on  the  other  hand,  such  a  change  in  man's  na- 
ture as  to  destroy  all  evil  propensities,  to  annihilate  all 


250  REGENERATION. 

the  passions  and  appetites,  and  to  give  an  entire  predomi- 
nance of  the  moral  and  intellectual  over  the  animal, 
would  equally  destroy  the  probation  of  man.  Such  a 
change  in  man  would  be  appropriate  to  a  state  of  re- 
ward, but  not  of  probation.  If  God  so  changes  the 
nature  of  any  human  being,  that  any  act  is  necessarily 
holy,  then,  although  the  act  may  be  followed  by  good 
consequences  and  in  itself  be  right,  still  the  agent  has 
no  merit,  is  no  better  or  more  worthy  of  reward  and  of 
happiness  for  having  done  it. 

Such  a  regeneration  as  this  change  of  nature  would 
be,  instead  of  promoting  by  discipline  a  meritorious  char- 
acter, would  put  an  instantaneous  stop  to  all  moral  im- 
provement, and  render  it  impossible.  All  desert,  all 
merit,  all  blame,  all  character,  as  instantly  ceases  when 
a  man  becomes  incapable  of  doing  evil,  as  when  he  be- 
comes, or  is  incapable  of  doing  good.  And  so,  accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  the  regenerate  are  placed  as  far  from 
the  line  of  moral  agency  on  one  side,  as  the  unregene- 
rate  are  on  the  other.  Suppose,  when  an  agent,  whom 
we  think  free,  is  deliberating  on  two  courses  of  action, 
one  of  which  he  perceives  to  be  good,  and  the  other 
wicked,  while  he  is  holding  the  thing  in  suspense,  and 
balanced,  as  we  may  say,  a  foreign  agent  having  access 
to  his  mind,  and  sufficient  power,  gives  supernatural 
strength  to  the  good  motive  and  turns  the  scale  ;  though 
the  action  might  be  good,  and  benefit  the  man,''would 
not  the  merit  of  it  be  entirely  destroyed?  Though  we 
might  call  the  man  fortunate,  could  we  call- him  worthy, 
or  meritorious  on  that  account?  Supposing  an  evil 
spirit,  on  the  other  hand,  should  interpose  and  super- 


REGENERATION.  251 

naturally  turn  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  wicked  action  ; 
though  the  action  might  be  evil,  and  attended  with  evil 
consequences,  should  we  not  consider  the  agent  unfor- 
tunate rather  than  criminal  ?  Just  so  with  a  regenerated 
and  an  unregenerated  man,  according  to  the  system  we 
are  considering.  One  is  constrained  to  do  evil  by  an 
agency  without  and  beyond  his  control,  his  own  nature 
made  incapable  of  doing  anything  that  is  good  ;  and  the 
other  equally  constrained  by  an  agency  without  and  be- 
yond his  control,  to  do  good,  by  his  own  nature,  changed, 
by  an  immediate  act  of  God,  from  a  prompter  to  all  evil, 
to  a  prompter  to  all  good. 

It  may  be  objected  to  this,  that  according  to  my  own 
showing,  the  principles  laid  down  would  destroy  the 
moral  desert  of  very  good  men  in  their  actions,  and 
the  moral  turpitude  of  very  bad  men  in  theirs.  For  it 
is  confessed  on  all  hands  that  long  habits  of  sin  do  at 
length  in  a  manner  enslave  the  will,  till  at  last  it  be- 
comes next  to  impossible  for  a  wicked  man  to  choose 
right,  and  habit  or  his  own  nature  depraved  by  bad 
usage,  comes  in  like  an  evil,  supernatural  power,  to  turn 
the  scale  and  determine  the  mind  to  evil.  According 
to  my  system,  it  may  be  objected,  he  is  not  to  blame. 
So  on  the  other  hand,  by  long  habits  of  virtue  the  choice 
of  good  becomes  spontaneous  and  almost  infallible. 
It  may  be  said,  that  I  would  make  the  suggestions  of 
habit  destroy  all  merit,  and  a  man  become  incapable 
of  virtue,  just  in  proportion  to  his  approach  to  perfec- 
tion. 

I  answer,  that  the  slavery  of  the  will,  the  incapacity 
to  do  good,  has  been  brought  on   by  the   man  himself. 


252  REGENERATION. 

It  is  one  of  the  natural  consequences  and  punishments 
of  sin.  So  has  the  readiness  of  the  choice  of  good 
been  produced  in  the  good  man  by  his  own  free  agency 
by  forming  the  habit  of  choosing  right,  and  he  is  justly 
entided  to  all  its  benefits,  as  the  other  as  justly  suffers 
the  merited  effects  of  indulgence  in  what  he  knew  to 
be  wrong.  And  this  opens  to  us  the  atrocity  of  that 
injustice  which  this  system  charges  upon  God.  It 
makes  him  inflict  this  impotence  of  the  will,  this  inca- 
pacity to  all  that  is  good,  on  an  innocent  being,  on  every 
child  that  comes  into  the  world,  previous  to  all  moral 
action,  all  character  and  desert,  which  could  be  the  just 
punishment  only  of  a  long  course  of  wilful  sin.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  bestows  this  spontaneous  choice  of 
good,  which  we  have  seen  is  the  necessary  consequence 
and  the  proper  reward  of  a  long  course  of  well-doing, 
arbitrarily  on  some,  who  have  done  nothing,  and  ac- 
cording to  this  system  could  do  nothing,  to  merit  this 
unspeakable  and  imnieasurable  distinction. 

These  considerations  moreover  throw  great  light  on 
the  doctrine  of  spiritual  influences  in  general.  They 
show  us  what  immediate  action  of  God  upon  the  mind 
is  consistent  with  moral  agendfy  and  what  is  not.  We 
see  there  can  be  no  action  immediately  upon  the  will. 
God,  it  is  true,  may  by  his  access  to  the  mind,  and  the 
power  he  has  over  it,  influence  a  man  to  do  this  or  that, 
or  to  go  to  this  place  or  that,  and  this  action  or  motion 
may  save  the  man's  life,  or  procure  him  some  other 
good.  But  so  far  as  his  will  was  acted  upon  by  God, 
he  is  neither  better  nor  worse,  his  moral  probation  ori 
progress  is  neither  hindered  nor  helped  by  it.     In  order 


UKGENEUATION.  253 

that  an  action  may  have  a  moral  cliaracter,  and  make 
a  man  better  or  worse,  it  must  originate  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  will  itself,  and  not  in  something  else, 
or  in  some  other  will.  Whatever  influence  God  exer- 
cises upon  man  as  a  moral  agent,  to  make  him  better 
or  worse,  must  not  touch  the  will,  but  leave  it  free. 
Any  attempt  to  make  man  good  by  operating  immedi- 
ately on  the  will,  even  by  almighty  power,  must  defeat 
itself  and  destroy  that  very  freedom  on  which  all  good 
or  ill  desert  depends.  Notliing  in  man,  we  have  al- 
ready observed,  is  of  a  moral  nature,  either  of  good  or 
ill  desert,  which  does  not  pass  through  the  understand- 
ing, is  not  perceived  by  that  to  be  either  good  or  evil, 
and  is  not  embraced  by  the  will  as  good  or  evil.  The 
only  way  then  in  which  God  himself  can  act  upon  the 
mind  of  man,  by  whicii  he  can  be  made  morally  better, 
is  by  presenting  ideas  to  his  understanding.  Why  not 
produce  feelings  and  dispositions  and  actions?  We 
answer,  that  feelings  produced  in  any  other  way  than 
through  the.  understanding  which  a})proves  or  disap- 
proves, have  no  moral  character,  and  though  they  may 
promote  present  enjoyment  or  produce  suflering,  do  not 
merit  either  praise  or  blame,  do  not  make  a  man  either 
better  or  worse.  And  dispositions  not  the  result  of 
choice  and  cultivation,  but  arbitrarily  bestowed,  are 
equally  destitute  of  all  worth  or  il!  desert.  Were  good- 
ness the  production  of  the  immediate  action  of  God 
upon  the  will,  the  feelings  and  dis|)ositions,  all  external 
means  and  institutions  of  religion  and  morality  would 
have  been  superfluous.  No  revelation  would  ever  have 
been  given,  for  the  inward  man  was  just  as  accessible 


254  REGENEKATION. 

to  God  without  as  with  a  revelation.  All  we  can  say 
is,  that  this  immediate  influence  is  not  the  way  in  which 
he  has  chosen  to  call  forth  goodness  in  man.  It  is  by  ad- 
dressing him  from  without  through  the  senses,  by  nature, 
by  Providence,  by  experience,  by  the  example  of  others, 
by  the  accumulated  wisdom  of  ages,  by  revelation,  by 
prayer,  by  the  other  institutions  of  religion.  With 
these  he  has  connected  the  growth  of  holiness  in  the 
soul  of  man,  just  as  he  has  connected  the  sowing  of  the 
seed  and  the  labors  of  cultivation  with  producing  a 
harvest,  instead  of  calling  it  into  being  by  an  immedi- 
ate act  of  creative  power. 

We  object,  in  the  third  place,  that  the  doctrine  of 
passive  regeneration  connected  with  human  inability, 
makes  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  a  solemn  mockery. 
It  makes  the  preacher  contradict  himself  at  every  breath. 
He  stands  professedly  to  call  sinners  to  repentance,  and 
he  must,  if  he  be  faithful,  say  to  men,  in  the  name,  and 
as  the  ambassador  of  Christ,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye 
that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest."  But  if  he  tell  them  the  whole  truth,  as  he  is 
bound  to  do,  he  must  likewise  tell  them,  that  it  does 
not  depend  upon  their  will,  that  they  cannot  make  one 
effectual  motion  towards  it,  till  God  works  upon  their 
hearts,  and  there  is  nothing  that  they  can  do  which  will 
prepare  themselves  for  it,  or  induce  God  to  do  it.  If 
this  be  not  a  solemn  mockery,  and  a  cruel  one,  I  know 
not  what  is.  That  it  does  not  bring  all  such  religious 
instruction  into  entire  discredit,  is  because  the  grossness 
of  the  contradiction  is  kept  out  of  sight,  by  general, 
mystical,  and  indefinite  language. 


REGENERATION.  255 

We  object  to  the  doctrine  of  passive  regeneration, 
and  in  short  the  doctrine  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Creeds 
and  preached  at  the  present  day,  that  it  is  founded  on 
a  perversion  of  the  figurative  language  of  Scripture. 
So  indeed  have  been  most  of  the  extravagances  which 
have  disfigured  the  Christian  church.  It  was  thus  that 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  drawn  from  the 
phrase,  "  this  is  my  body,"  and  of  vicarious  sacrifice 
from  Christ's  redeeming  us  with  his  blood.  Figurative 
language  is  the  comparison  of  one  thing  with  another 
for  the  sake  of  illustration,  from  some  point  of  resem- 
blance. But  instead  of  stopping  at  those  points  in 
which  there  is  a  real  resemblance,  enthusiastic  minds 
run  on  to  find  or  make  a  resemblance  where  there  is 
none.  This  is  sometimes  harmless.  But  it  does  not 
stop  here.  Some  minds  pass  from  enthusiasm  to  fanat- 
icism, and  insist  in  transferring  to  the  thing  compared, 
all  the  qualities  and  circumstances  of  the  thing  to  which 
it  is  compared. 

Thus,  because  Christ  called  the  process  by  which  a 
man  became  a  true  Christian  in  his  dny,  being  "  born 
again,"  not  from  any  resemblance  between  the  two 
things,  but  from  an  accidental  cause,  as  I  shall  hereafter 
show,  the  expression  has  been  caught  up  and  made  to 
contain  the  very  essence  of  the  Gospel.  Happening 
to  fall  in,  as  it  did,  with  the  theory  of  man's  entire  cor- 
ruption and  inability,  which  has  prevailed  since  the 
days  of  Calvin,  though  occurring  but  a  (ew  times,  it  has 
been  more  used  perhaps  in  Protestant  churches,  to  ex- 
press that  spiritual  renovation  which  is  the  legitimate 
effect  of  the  Gospel,  than   all   the  many  terms  which 


256  REGENEKATION. 

signify  the  same  thing  in  the  whole  New  Testament. 
The  nature  of  spiritual  renovation  has  been  imagined 
and  described  to  be,  not  what  it  is,  but  what  natural 
birth  is.  Instead  of  investigating  spiritual  renovation 
in  its  own  laws  and  nature,  they  go  for  them  to  natural 
birth,  and  insist,  because  of  the  comparison,  that  one  is 
precisely  like  the  other  in  every  respect.  Men  are  not 
born  according  to  their  own  wills,  or  volitions,  so  it  fol- 
lows logically  and  philosophically,  that  we  are  passive 
in  regeneration.  One  takes  place  in  a  very  short  space 
of  time,  so  the  other  must  without  question  likewise  be 
instantaneous.  And  as  a  person  once  born  cannot  re- 
lapse into  a  state  of  being  unborn,  so  it  is  demonstrably 
proved  that  a  good  man  can  never  become  a  bad  man. 
Thus  it  is  that  the  literal  parts  of  Scripture  are  sacri- 
ficed, and  made  to  bend  to  the  figurative,  and  even 
contrary  figures  are  overlooked  and  forgotten.  It  is 
forgotten  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  always  addressed 
men  as  free,  "  Whosoever  will,  let  him  take  the  water 
of  life  freely."  It  is  forgotten  that  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  compared  to  leaven,  to  the  gradual  growth  of 
corn,  and  a  grain  of  mustard  seed.  It  is  forgotten  that 
all  Christians  were  warned  against  relapse,  and  Paul 
himself  felt  the  possibility  of  becoming  a  castaway. 

What  do  men  mean  by  thus  treating  the  doctrine  of 
revelation  ?  Do  they  wish  to  mystify  instead  of  ex- 
plaining the  Bible  ?  Do  they  wish  to  make  it  a  riddle 
instead  of  a  plain  book  ?  Do  they  wish  to  make  the 
people  entirely  dependent  on  the  Priesthood,  or  would 
they  so  enlighten  them  that  they  may  find  the  way  to 
heaven   themselves  ?      Would  they  make  the  Gospel 


REGENERATION.  257 

glad  tidings,  or  the  means  of  filling  men's  minds  with 
confusion,  alarm  and  distress  ? 

This  brings  me  to  the  second  principal  division  of 
discourse,  the  examinqlion  of  that  part  of  Scripture,  on 
which  this  phraseology  is  founded.  It  is  taken,  as  you 
know,  from  the  third  chapter  of  John,  from  Christ's 
conversation  with  JNicodemus.  That  conversation  I 
shall  now  attempt  to  explain. 

And  we  first  observe  that  the  artificial  division  of  the 
Bible  into  chapters  and  verses,  as  often  in  other  cases, 
so  peculiarly  in  this,  has  contributed  to  obscure  the 
meaning,  by  destroying  the  connection  on  which  the 
whole  point  and  bearing  of  the  conversation  depend. 
The  last  three  verses  of  the  preceding  chapter  ought  to 
have  belonged  to  this,  as  they  are  immediately  intro- 
ductory, and  state  a  general  truth  of  which  the  conver- 
sation with  Nicodemus  is  a  particular  proof,  example, 
illustration.  "  Now  when  Jesus  was  in  Jerusalem  at 
the  passover,  in  the  feast  day,  many  believed  in  his 
name,  when  they  saw  the  miracles  which  he  did.  But 
Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them,  because  he 
knew  all  men,  and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify 
of  man,  for  he  knew  what  was  in  man."  As  an  exam- 
ple of  this  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  There  was  a  man  of  the 
Pharisees  named  Nicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews.  The 
same  came  to  Jesus  by  night,  and  said  unto  him.  Rabbi, 
we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God,  for 
no  man  can  do  these  miracles  which  thou  doest,  except 
God  be  with  him.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him. 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."     What  an- 


fiOO  .  IIECKNEUATION. 

swer  was  this  to  the  address  of  Nicodemus  ?  None  at 
all,  surely.  But  it  was  something  more.  It  was  an  an- 
swer to  what  was  in  him,  to  his  thoughts,  and  purposes, 
and  his  whole  character.  Being  "born  again,"  was  a 
phrase  very  well  understood  by  Nicodemus,  because  it 
was  a  phrase  in  common  use  among  the  Jews,  and  ap- 
plied to  the  act  of  becoming  a  proselyte  to  Judaism 
from  idolatry.  The  convert  was  washed  or  baptized, 
received  a  new  name,  renounced  his  natural  kindred 
and  by  a  kind  of  legal  fiction,  became  a  child  of  Abra- 
ham, and  commencing  a  new  life,. was  very  naturally 
said  to  be  born  again.  Such,  said  Christ  to  Nicode- 
mus, must  be  the  change,  which  must  take  place  in 
every  one,  even  a  Jew,  who  is  received  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  and  becomes  a  true  Christian.  Nico- 
demus undoubtedly  understanding  him  in  that  sense, 
inquires,  "  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old  ? 
Can  he  enter  the  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb 
and  be  born  ?"  Can  we  Jews,  who  have  grown  old  in 
our  religion,  renounce  it  for  a  new  one  ?  Are  we  not 
now  the  people  of  God  ?  ''  Jesus  answered,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Excej)t  a  man  be  born,"  of 
water  and  sj)irit,  not  "  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit"  as 
our  version  has  mistranslated  it,  "  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."  You  come  to  me  in  secret,  and 
profess  your  convictions  of  my  prophetic  character. 
Go,  and  be  baptized,  and  openly  profess  your  faith. 
You  come  relying  on  your  birth  as  a  Jew  to  entitle  you 
to  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  I  solemnly 
assure  you,  that  no  natural  lineage  gives  you  any  such 
privilege.     Birth  into   my  kingdom   must  be  spiritual, 


REGENEKATJON.  259 

not  of  the  flesh.  ,  He  who  becomes  a  follower  of  mine, 
by  imbibing  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  is  the  true  son  of 
Abraham,  and  child  of  God.  "  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh  :  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  spirit 
is  spirit."  He  who  is  a  child  of  Abraham  according  to 
the  flesh,  is  merely  a  man.  He  has  no  moral  or  spirit- 
ual character  on  that  account.  But  he  who  by  my 
doctrine  becomes  in  his  soul  like  Abraham,  he  becomes 
a  true  member  of  the  new  church,  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven, and  a  spiritual  child  of  Abraham.  The  whole  er- 
ror in  this  doctrine  of  passive  regeneration,  so  far  as  it 
is  founded  on  this  passage  has  arisen  from  considering 
"spirit"  in  this  case  to  mean  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
contrast  is  not  between  flesh  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but 
between  the  corporeal  and  the  spiritual  part  of  man  ; 
those  who  derived  their  birth  from  Jewish  parents,  and 
those  who  became  true  Christians  in  their  souls.  "Mar- 
vel not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must  be  born  again. 
The  wind  bloweth  where  it  lisleth,  and  thou  hearest 
the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh, 
and  whither  it  goeth  ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of 
the  spirit."  Be  not  astonished  that  I  say  to  you  Jews, 
ye  must  be  born  again,  must  outwardly  profess,  and  in- 
wardly, spiritually  adopt  and  practise  my  religion  ;  for 
although  you  may  trace  human  descent  and  parentage, 
and  ascertain  by  something  outward,  who  are  or  who 
are  not  Jews  by  birth,  the  children  of  Abraham,  and  as 
you  conceive,  the  children  of  God,  spiritual  birth  the 
true  children  of  Abraham,  cannot  be  discovered  by  any- 
thing of  the  kind.  Virtue  and  holiness,  acknowledge 
no  such  descent.     They  are  equally  within  the  attain- 


260  REGENERATION. 

ment  of  every  soul.  You  cannot  trace  them  to  any 
earthly  origin  or  lineage,  any  more  than  you  can  find 
the  place  wJiere  the  wind  that  blows  begins,  or  where 
it  ends. 

To  what  then  does  this  amount  ?  Simply  to  this. 
The  Evangelist  John  relates  of  Jesus,  as  an  evidence  of 
his  Messiahship,  what  the  Jews  expected  of  their  Mes- 
siah, that  he  should  have  power  to  discern  the  thoughts 
and  characters  of  men  ;  that  on  his  first  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem after  his  baptism,  Nicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews 
came  to  him  by  night,  for  fear  of  committing  himself  by 
such  a  visit  by  day,  with  a  design  no  doubt,  to  do  what 
in  modern  homely  phrase  would  be  called  to  sound  him, 
to  lead  him  into  conversation,  to  find  out  more  of  him, 
his  mission  and  designs,  in  order  to  become  his  follower 
or  not,  as  his  prudence  or  interest  might  ultimately  dic- 
tate, Jesus  at  once  discovering  the  character  and 
mental  condition  of  the  man,  instead  of  replying  di- 
rectly to  his  address,  which  was  merely  a  respectful 
profession  of  belief  in  his  prophetic  character,  answers, 
to  his  thoughts,  opinions  and  purposes,  and  tells  him 
that  baptism,  outward  profession,  and  spiritual  renova- 
tion, wer^  the  only  initiation  into  his  kingdom.  It  was 
the  renovation  of  the  soul  which  was  the  requisite,  not 
the  birth  of  the  body  of  Jewish  lineage.  Th^t  is,  a 
man,  to  enjoy  the  blessedness  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom, 
must  become  a  Christian,  both  by  profession  and  prac- 
tice, both  outwardly  and  inwardly. 

Is  there  one  word  said  here  of  the  fall  of  man,  of 
original  sin  and  entire  inability  in  man  to  will  or  to  do 
any  good  ?     Is  there  anything  intimated  of  the  necessity 


REGENEllATION.  261 

of  his  nature  being  changed  by  an  Almighty  fiat,  before 
lie  is  caj)able  of  moral  agency  ?  Is  there  any  indication 
that  the  souls  of  men  were  merely  passive  in  their  trans- 
lation into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  It  docs  not  appear 
that  Jesus  was  speaking  on  that  subject.  There  is  no 
mention  of  the  agent  in  regeneration  at  all.  He  neither 
asserts  nor  denies  that  the  soul  is  regenerated  by  the 
irresistible  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  merely 
declares  that  the  qualifications  for  admission  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  are  spiritual,  of  the  mind,  and  not 
of  the  flesh  or  body,  by  birth  or  descent.  By  what  means 
those  qualities  are  produced  or  acquired,  he  does  not 
assert.  It  would  have  been  entirely  foreign  to  his  pur- 
pose and  to  the  subject,  to  have  said  anything  about  it. 
But  there  are  circumstances  in  the  case,  which  show 
that  he  did  not  suppose  that  spiritual  regeneration  was 
produced  by  any  foreign,  irresistible  agency.  For  it  is 
coupled  in  the  same  category,  and  made  a  part  of  the 
same  condition,  with  being  born  of  water.  That  was 
certainly  voluntary,  and  brought  about  by  free,  volun- 
tary agency,  and  we  have  a  right  to  suppose  spiritual 
birth  or  the  moral  preparation,  to  be  voluntary  like- 
wise. To  suppose  otherwise,  would  be  to  suppose 
that  Christ  gave  as  a  condition  of  entering  his  kingdom, 
one  thing  which  men  could  comply  with,  and  another 
which  they  could  not ;  which  would  make  the  condition, 
as  offered  to  free,  intelligent,  and  responsible  agents, 
exceedingly  trifling  and  inconsequent.  So  you  perceive 
that  the  doctrine  of  passive  regeneration  finds  no  sup- 
port in  that  very  passage  of  Scripture  from  which  it  is 
derived.     It  is  as  inconsistent  with  Scripture,  as  it  is 


262  REGENERATION. 

with  common  sense  and  the  nature  of  things.  Both 
Scripture  and  reason  unitedly  testify,  that  a  man's  ac- 
tions to  have  any  moral  character,  to  make  him  better 
or  worse,  must  originate  in  himself.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  passive,  mechanical  virtue  and  holiness. 

If  we  would  learn  what  other  agent  there  is  besides 
man's  will  in  regeneration,  we  must  go  to  our  text. 
"  Born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  incorruptible, 
by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  forever." 
The  word  of  God,  then,  this  is  the  great  spiritual  power 
which,  in  conjunction  with  the  will,  works  a  spiritual 
renovation  in  a  man.  Now  we  have  come  to  something 
rational  and  intelligible.  The  word  of  God  addresses  it- 
self to  the  understanding,  the  rational  faculties  of  man, 
and  through  them  to  the  will,  and  therefore  the  actions 
it  induces  men  to  do  may  have  a  moral  character,  be 
worthy  of  praise  or  blame.  We  can  readily  see  how  a 
man  may  become  spiritually  renovated,  or  spiritually 
born  into  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the  word  of  God,  for 
it  operates  by  persuasion,  instruction,  motive,  induce- 
ment. It  may  work  a  thorough  change  in  him  without 
violating  his  free  agency,  but  through  his  free  agency. 
But  the  other  interpretation,  being  born  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  the  sense  of  a  miraculous  change  of  nature  by 
irresistible  power,  has  no  moral  character  at  all,  neither 
makes  a  man  better  nor  worse.  "  The  words  that  I 
speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life."  He 
had  just  before  been  speaking  of  his  being  the  bread  of 
life,  and  giving  his  flesh  and  blood  to  be  the  life  of  the 
world.  Some  of  them  took  offence  at  it ;  he  explains 
himself:     It  is  my  doctrine  I  mean.    "  It  is   the  spirit 


REGENERATION.  263 

that  quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing;  the  words 
that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life  ;" 
and  as  spirit,  have  power  to  quicken  and  communicate 
spiritual  Hfe.  "  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth ;  thy 
word  is  truth."  Tlie  word,  then,  has  power  to  quicken 
and  sanctify.  And  what  is  this  but  spiritual  renovation, 
regeneration,  birth  of  the  soul  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ? 
When,  says  the  apostle,  "  the  world  by  wisdom  knew 
not  God,  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching 
to  save  them  that  believe."  By  preaching  what?  The 
word,  surely.  But  was  not  the  power  of  God  required 
to  connect  the  word,  the  cause,  with  the  effect,  the 
spiritual  renovation  of  the  hearer  ?  Certainly.  So  is 
his  power  requisite  to  connect  any  other  cause  with  its 
effect,  the  sowing  of  the  seed  with  the  springing  of  the 
plant.  And  the  accompanying  agency  of  God  is  as 
sure  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  But  there  is  another 
agency  to  come  in  on  both  occasions,  that  of  man.  He 
must  receive  the  word  into  a  good  and  honest  heart. 
The  Gospel  did  not  save  men  against  their  will.  It  on- 
ly gave  them  the  opportunity  to  be  saved.  And  the 
reason  why  one  was  spiritually  renovated,  reformed, 
saved,  and  another  failed  to  be,  was  not  because  he 
withheld  that  efficiency  from  his  word  in  one  case  which 
he  gave  it  in  another,  but  because  one  man  chose  to 
obey  and  the  other  to  resist  it. 

"  For  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth."  Why  ?  Be- 
cause he  asks.  But  this  theory  makes  it  necessary  for 
him  to  receive  tlie  very  thing  he  asks  before  he  asks, 
otherwise  he  cannot  ask  acceptably.  The  very  thing 
which  he  wishes  to  have  done  for  him  must  have  been 


264  REGENERATION. 

done  before,  or  it  i«  useless  for  him  to  pray,  and  if  it 
has  been  done,  it  is  manifestly  useless.  "  The  cares  of 
this  world  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  and  the  lusts 
of  other  things  entering  in,  choke  the  word  and  it  be- 
cometh  unfruitful."  "  What,  choke  the  word,  if  it  be 
irresistible  !  Can  omnipotence  be  defeated  ?  If  man 
be  altogether  passive  in  regeneration,  can  anything  in 
him,  either  the  cares  of  this  world  or  anything  else,  af- 
ford any  effectual  resistance  ? 

The  doctrine  of  passive  regeneration  by  irresistible 
power  must  be  given  up  as  inconsistent  with  the  laws 
of  the  mind,  the  moral  constitution  of  our  nature,  and 
unsupported,  nay,  contradicted  by  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

It  may  now  occur  to  ask,  what  tiien  is  regeneration 
by  the  word  of  God,  or  the  Gospel,  as  applied  to  us  ? 
We  will  attempt  to  explain  it.  The  only  way,  we  be- 
fore demonstrated,  in  which  a  man  can  be  morally 
changed,  and  made  a  better  man,  is  through  his  under- 
standing and  will,  by  instruction,  persuasion,  motive,  in- 
ducement. 

The  Gospel  is  a  system  of  doctrines,  a  collection  of 
facts,  a  body  of  motives,  precepts,  and  predictions, 
which  are  addressed  to  the  understanding,  the  con- 
science, the  feelings,  the  sympathies,  the  whole  moral 
nature  of  man,  and  through  all  these  to  the  will,  to  pro- 
duce right  action.  Its  effect,  of  course,  is  to  form  a 
good  character  when  there  is  none,  and  reform  it  when 
it  is  bad.  The  spiritual  birth  spoken  of  by  Christ,  does 
not  define  the  condition  before  it  took  place  to  be 
either  sinful  or  innocent.  He  merely  insists  that  to  be 
a  Christian,  a  man  must  possess  a  Christian  character. 


REGENERATION.  2'65 

The  Gospel  enlightens  the  understanding,  teaches  it 
concerning  God,  the  fountain  and  foundation  of  all  re- 
ligion, and  makes  him  the  all-commanding  motive,  the 
central,  all-pervading  force  in  spiritual  things.  It  teaches 
more  of  man  and  duty,  and  the  reasons  of  it ;  and  thus' 
informs,  awakens,  and  quickens  the  moral  sense.  It 
sets  before  us  Jesus  Christ  with  his  all  perfect  character, 
to  be  an  object  of  our  sympathies  and  affections,  and 
thus  enlists  our  feelings  on  the  side  of  goodness. 
Through  his  resurrection,  it  opens  to  us  the  spiritual 
world  with  its  tremendous  and  eternal  retributions.  It 
gives  us  access  with  greater  confidence  to  the  Father  of 
mercies  in  our  devotions.  When  therefore,  one  who 
has  been  instructed  by  the  Gospel  is  placed  in  a  situa- 
tion where  a  moral  choice  is  to  be  made,  there  is  a 
greater  probability  that  he  will  choose  right,  for  he  sees 
more  clearly  the  reasons  for  it,  and  his  whole  nature  is 
enlisted  on  the  side  of  right.  By  the  repetition  of  such 
actions  the  character  is  formed,  the  soul  is  born  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

But  the  Gospel  has  power  to  change  as  well  as  form 
the  character.  A  man  grows  up  decidedly  bad.  In  or- 
der to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  he  must  become 
a  good  man.  This  takes  place  under  the  influences  of 
the  religion  of  Jesus, — sometimes  suddenly,  but  oftener 
by  slow  advances.  When  it  is  done,  how  has  it  been 
accomplished  ?  The  theory  we  have  been  examining 
makes  it  to  have  been  accomplished  by  almighty,  irre- 
sistible power,  changing  his  nature,  or  forcing  his  will. 
Such  a  change,  we  have  already  demonstrated,  would 
destroy  all  moral  agency  and  accountability.  How  then 
23 


i 


266  RKGENERATION. 

does  it  happen?  Not  by  a  change  of  moral  nature  but 
by  a  change  of  moral  action.  One  Is  within  the  power 
of  man's  free  will,  and  the  other  is  not. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  change  in  the  objects  of 
his  attention.  We  all  know  we  have  the  power  of 
turning  our  minds,  our  thoughts,  to  whatever  we  please. 
Before,  the  man  of  whom  we  speak,  paid  no  attention 
to  religion  or  religious  subjects.  He  was  entirely  ab- 
sorbed in  worldly  or  vicious  pursuits.  Something  called 
his  attention  forcibly  to  religion.  Some  exhibition  of 
Gospel  truth  perhaps  impressed  him,  or  some  event  of 
providence  ;  or  he  spontaneously  directed  his  mind  that 
way,  as  men  may  direct  their  minds  to  any  subject  or 
any  pursuit.  Instead  of  thinking  of  his  business,  and 
his  worldly  affairs,  when  he  is  in  the  house  of  God,  he 
enters  into  the  devotions,  he  attends  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  listens  with  desire  of  personal  improvement  to  the 
preaching.  Instead  of  reading  secular  books  exclusively, 
when  he  has  any  time  to  devote  to  reading,  he  turns  his 
attention  often  to  the  Bible.  By  thus  directing  his  mind 
to  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament,  its  nature  is  not 
changed.  It  is  the  same  mind  in  all  its  faculties  and 
endowments  that  it  was  before.  The  objects  only,  to 
which  its  exercises  are  directed,  are  changed.  His  un- 
derstanding is  enlightened,  and  bis  knowledge  enlarged. 
He  becomes  acquainted  with  his  duty  and  the  reasons 
of  it.  He  learns  more  of  God,  of  himself,  and  of  the 
consequences  of  his  conduct.  By  this  direction  of  his 
attention  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  his  moral  sense,  his 
conscience  is  awakened,  made  more  active  and  discrimi- 
nating.    His  motives  for  obeying  its  dictates  are  more 


I 


REGENERATION.  267 

fully  displayed  and  comprehended.  And  when  he 
again  comes  to  act,  those  considerations  which  were 
before  overlooked  present  themselves/and  he  will  no 
longer  act  as  he  did  before  he  attended  to  them.  His 
choice  is  different,  his  conduct  and  consequently  his 
character  changed. 

In  the  second  place,  the  objects  of  his  pursuit  are 
changed.  The  powers  by  which  he  pursues  them  are 
unaltered,  but  the  objects  to  which  they  are  directed 
are  changed.  Before,  all  his  actions  and  energies  were 
directed  to  the  acquisition  of  worldly  advantages.  By 
the  Gospel  he  is  taught  that  these  are  not  the  only  good  ; 
that  the  calm  satisfactions  of  an  approving  conscience, 
the  sense  of  the  approbation  of  God,  the  sentiment  of 
duty,  the  exercise  of  the  benevolent  and  religious  affec- 
tions, are  as  rich  and  valuable  sources  of  happiness  as 
those  which  he  has  exclusively  cultivated.  He  directs 
his  efforts  to  gain  these  good  things.  When  called  upon 
to  act,  he  chooses  with  reference  to  these,  he  chooses 
to  secure  the  approbation  of  his  conscience  by  obeying 
its  dictates,  to  secure  the  favour  of  God  by  doing  his 
will.  He  seeks  the  pleasures  of  benevolence  by  exer- 
cising it  on  all  proper  occasions.  He  seeks  the  plea- 
sures of  devotion  by  maintaining  communion  with  God. 

In  the  third  place,  the  objects  of  his  affections  are 
changed.  The  faculty  by  which  he  loves,  undergoes  no 
alteration.  It  has  now  new  objects.  Before,  he  was 
conversant  only  with  the  things  of  the  world,  with  the 
pleasures  of  the  senses,  and  the  unlawful  gratification  of 
the  passions.  These  are  attended  with  a  degree  of 
pleasure,  though  of  a  low  and  unsatisfactory  kind,  and 


268  KEGENERATION. 

besides,  wound  the  conscience  and  injure  the  mind. 
However,  being  the  only  objects  with  which  his  mind  is 
conversant,  habit  and  a  shght  degree  of  gratification 
make  him  attached  to  them.  But  on  directing  his  atten- 
tion to  religion  and  becoming  acquainted  with  a  new 
class  of  objects,  such  as  conscience,  virtue,  piety,  God, 
and  spiritual  things,  he  finds  that  these  too  have  their 
pleasures ;  he  becomes  attached  to  them,  and  they  de- 
stroy his  relish  for  the  other  class  of  objects  and  wean 
him  from  them. 

Thus  it  is  that  the  man's  habits  of  action  become  en- 
tirely changed,  his  feelings  and  affections.  His  charac- 
ter is  changed,  and  he  is  born  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
But  there  is  no  change  of  nature,  no  irresistible  action 
of  God  upon  his  soul.  It  is  the  result  of  his  own  free 
agency.  But  it  may  be  asked,  do  you  exclude  divine 
influence  ?  We  answer,  no.  But  "  the  Spirit  helpeth 
our  infirmities,"  does  not  originate  or  perform  our  ac- 
tions. God  gives  "  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask 
him,"  but  not  in  order  to  cause  them  to  ask  him. 

Here  then  is  the  distinction  the  neglect  of  which  has 
been  the  source  of  so  much  mistake.  Regeneration  is 
a  voluntary  change  of  moral  action,  not  a  change  of  na- 
ture. That  theory  which  would  make  it  a  change  of 
nature,  would  make  man  not  a  free  agent  either  before 
or  after  regeneration.  Before,  he  has  not  the  power  to 
do  good,  and  afterwards,  as  this  doctrine  is  always  con- 
nected with  that  of  the  saints'  perseverance,  he  "  is 
kept  by  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation."  Now  he 
can  be  literally  so  kept  only  by  destroying  his  free 
agency.     So,  before  regeneration,  he  is  prevented  by 


REGENERATION.  XOV 

God,  through  his  own  nature,  from  doing  good  ;  and 
after  regeneration,  he  is  prevented  from  doing  evil  by 
the  same  power,  by  a  change  of  his  nature,  or  an  inter- 
ference with  his  will.  He  is  therefore  not  a  free  agent 
in  either  case. 

But  the  theory  of  regeneration  consisting  in  an  in- 
stantaneous and  entire  change  of  nature  seems  in  sad 
contradiction  to  facts.  How  happens  it  that  the  re- 
generated sin  at  all?  If  before  regeneration  every  act 
was  sinful  because  it  proceeded  from  a  sinful  nature,  so 
after  regeneration,  by  which  the  nature  is  made  holy, 
every  act  ought  to  be  holy,  according  to  the  nature  from 
which  it  proceeds.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  Those 
who  are  thought  regenerate,  still  continue  to  sin.  The 
capacity  to  sin  is  not  taken  away,  nor  the  inclination. 
To  what,  then,  does  that  holiness  of  nature  amount, 
which  still  leaves  the  capacity  and  the  inclination  to  sin 
and  occasional  indulgence  ?  What  more  can  the  unre- 
generate  man  have,  than  the  capacity  and  the  inclination 
to  sin,  and  occasional  indulgence  ?  There  is  no  difference 
of  nature  between  them.  The  only  possible  difference 
is,  that  one  yields  to  temptation  more  frequently  than 
the  other.  And  to  what  does  this  amount  ?  To  differ- 
ent habits  of  moral  action.  The  only  difference  between 
them  is  different  degrees  of  virtue  and  vice,  of  holiness 
and  sin.  But,  it  is  said,  up  to  the  point  of  regeneration 
the  unregenerate  can  do  nothing  good,  are  incapable  of 
virtue.  I  answer,  that  this  bears  the  same  marks  of  ex- 
travagance with  the  assertion  that  the  regenerate  man 
cannot  sin.  And  as  one  is  not  true,  the  other,  being 
based  on  the  same  hypothesis,  is  just  as  likely  to  be 
23* 


270  REGENERATION. 

false.  This  point  is  imaginary.  There  is  every  grada- 
tion of  character,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest.  There 
is  no  such  great  chasm  at  any  particular  line.  All  the 
regeneration  which  facts  and  the  experience  of  life  ex- 
hibit to  us,  is  that  of  more  good  actions  and  less  sins 
than  before,  and  that  is  a  change  of  moral  action,  not  of 
moral  nature. 

But,  it  may  be  said,  a  man  must  be  something  or  no- 
thing, regenerate  or  unregeneraie,  a  saint  or  a  sinner, 
in  a  state  of  perdition  or  salvation.  I  answer,  that  this 
representation  arises  from  gross  ideas  and  false  concep- 
tions and  analogies.  It  arises  from  urging  the  figure  of 
birth  in  a  point  where  it  was  not  intended  to  apply,  and 
from  supposing  future  happiness  or  misery  is  to  arise 
from  place,  not  moral  condition.  Let  us  bring  these 
conceptions  to  the  test  of  the  word  of  God.  He  that 
"  is  born  of  God  sinneth  not."  That  is  true  to  the  let- 
ter. But  who  arrives  at  such  a  degree  of  perfection  as 
this  in  the  present  world  ?  Then  no  one  is  fully  born 
in  a  spiritual  sense  till  he  arrives  at  the  perfection  of 
heaven.  Regeneration,  then,  instead  of  being  momen- 
tary, embraces  the  whole  Christian  course  from  the  be- 
ginning to  the  end. 

But  what  change  in  the  moral  nature  of  man  keeps 
him  from  sinning,  according  to  this  system,  after  regene- 
ration ?  It  must  be  a  change  of  some  or  all  the  powers 
concerned  in  moral  action.  These  are  the  understand- 
ing and  moral  sense,  the  passions  and  appetites,  and  the 
will.  We  have  already  demonstrated  that  the  will  can- 
not be  immediately  touched  without  destroying  moral 
action.     The  appetites  and  passions  cannot,  without  de- 


REGENERATION.  271 

stroying  temptation,  and  of  course  moral  probation. 
There  remain,  then,  only  the  understanding  and  the 
moral  sense.  And  these  are  the  very  powers  which  need 
not  miraculous  interference.  They  are  the  very  powers 
which  man  can  cultivate  and  strengthen,  to  any  extent, 
by  his  own  moral  actions  ;  and  for  the  cultivation  and 
improvement  of  which  there  are  provided  means  as 
boundless  as  the  universe,  and  as  rich  as  the  unsearch- 
able and  inexhaustible  stores  of  divine  revelation,  and 
accessible  as  the  everlasting  fountain  of  devotion  spring- 
ing up  perpetually  in  the  soul. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  soul  is  active,  not 
passive,  in  the  process  of  spiritual  renovation,  in  being 
born  into  the  kinsrdom  of  heaven. 


LECTURE  XI. 


WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY. 

ROMANS,  I.  16. 

"  For  1  AM  NOT  ASHAMED  OF  THE  GOSPEL  OF  CHRIST  ;  FOR  IT  IS  THE 
POWER  OF  GOD  UNTO  SALVATION  TO  EVERY  ONE  THAT  BELIEVETH." 

What  is  Christianity  ?  Tiiis  is  the  question  which  I 
propose  tliis  evening  to  discuss.  I  am  not  unaware  of 
the  difficulty  of  defining  so  wide  and  general  a  subject, 
or  compressing  that  definition  into  a  single  discourse. 
I  am  not  unaware,  likewise,  of  the  great  variety  of  an- 
swers which  might  be  given  to  this  question,  all  equally 
true  according  to  the  view  taken  of  it,  and  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  considered.  The  answer  we  shall  attempt 
to  give  it,  will  be  with  reference  to  this  point, — its  power 
over  the  minds,  hearts,  and  lives  of  men.  What  in  it 
are  the  sources  of  its  moral  and  spiritual  power?  Its 
effect  upon  mankind  was  at  once  great  and  signal.  It 
immediately  formed  a  comnmnity  of  a  character  more 
pure  and  exalted  than  the  world  had  ever  known.  And 
from  that  day  to  this,  those  who  have  enjoyed  its  influ- 
ence have  been  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
by  a  marked  superiority  of  moral,  social,  and  intellectual 
condition.     An  eflfect  has  been  produced.     That  effect 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY.  273 

must  have  had  an  adequate  cause.  That  cause  is  con- 
tained in  the  narrow  compass  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  not  pretended  that  there  is  anything  traditionary 
in  our  rehgion.  It  is  all  written  down  in  the  memoirs 
of  the  evangelists  and  apostles.  Does  it  exceed  the 
powers  of  the  human  mind  to  trace  these  efTects  to  their 
causes  ?  In  doing  this  we  shall  discover  what  is  essen- 
tial to  Christianity,  and  what  is  not,  a  point  than  which 
nothing  can  be  more  important  to  settle  with  cer- 
tainty and  conviction. 

It  may  have  seemed,  and  doubtless  has  seemed  to 
many  honest  minds,  that  in  discarding  the  doctrines  we 
have  been  discussing,  such'^as  the  Trinity,  original  sin, 
moral  inability,  vicarious  punishment,  passive  and  irre- 
sistible regeneration,  and  their  associated  doctrines,  that 
we  had  stripped  Christianity  of  all  its  peculiar  and  most 
precious  elements,  and  made  it  another  Gospel.  This 
impression  may  be  very  honest  and  sincere,  and  at  the 
same  time  very  erroneous.  It  may  be  that  their  impres- 
sions as  to  what  Christianity  is,  may  have  arisen  more 
from  habit  than  examination.  They  have  perhaps  been 
accustomed  to  hear  these  doctrines  preached  as  the  sum 
and  substance  of  the  Gospel,  and  have  associated  with 
them  their  religious  ideas  and  feelings.  It  may  be,  then, 
that  their  belief  in  these  opinions  and  dogmas,  is  rather 
traditionary  than  derived  from  the  Bible.  When  they 
miss  their  old  theological  terms  and  doctrines,  when 
they  hear  the  Gospel  stripped  of  these  peculiarities,  it 
may  seem  another  Gospel,  not  because  it  is  diflferent 
from  the  Gospel  of  the  New  Testament,  but  because  it  is 
different  from  the  creeds,  systems,  and  inventions  of  men. 


274  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY. 

The  only  way  to  determine  which  is  the  true  Gospel, 
is  to  compare  them  both  with  the  preaching  of  the  apos- 
tles. We  have  in  the  Acts,  records  of  their  preaching 
for  thirty  years.  We  have  sketches  of  their  sermons  on 
many  important  occasions,  before  large  bodies  of  men, 
both  Jews  and  heathens.  We  have  sermons  which  were 
followed  by  the  most  signal  effects,  the  conversion  of 
thousands  to  Christianity,  such  effects  as  demonstrated 
the  doctrines  taught,  whatever  they  were,  to  be  the  true 
Gospel,  which  is  well  characterized  in  our  text  as  '•'  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation." 

We  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  what  they 
taught  was  the  true  Gospel,  and  all  that  was  essential  to 
it,  because  in  the  first  place  they  were  under  the  imme- 
diate influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  the  second 
place,  because  it  produced  the  effect,  which  the  Gospel 
was  intended  to  produce,  the  moral  and  spiritual  reno- 
vation of  the  hearers,  repentance,  reformation  and  obe- 
dience. I  beseech  you,  therefore,  to  follow  me  with  an 
impartial  mind  while  I  examine  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles  as  recorded  in  the  Acts.  And  I  entreat  you, 
one  and  all,  not  only  to  listen  to  these  lectures  with  can- 
dor, but  to  imitate  the  conduct  of  the  noble  Bereans,  so 
highly  commended  by  Paul,  to  search  the  Scriptures 
daily  to  see  whether  these  things  are  so.  Neither  re- 
ceive nor  reject  the  doctrines  you  hear  in  this  place,  on 
human  authority,  but  go  to  the  Bible,  and  comparing 
one  part  with  another,  endeavor  to  make  a  consistent 
whole. 

We  shall  first  examine  the  first  Christian  sermon  that 
was  ever  delivered,  and  one  which  was  followed  by  the 


WHAT   IS   CHRISTIANITY.  275 

conversion  of  a  greater  number  than  any  other  sermon 
ever  preached,  the  conversion  of  three  thousand  souls. 
"  Ye  men  of  Israel,  hear  these  words  :  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, a  man  approved  of  God  among  you,  by  miracles, 
and  wonders  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him  in  the 
midst  of  you,  as  ye  yourselves  also  know  ;  him,  being 
delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowl- 
edge of  God,  ye  iiave  taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have 
crucified  and  slain  ;  whom  God  hath  raised  up." 
"  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  are  wit- 
nesses. Therefore,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God 
exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye 
now  see  and  hear."  ''  Therefore,  let  all  the  house  of 
Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made  that  same 
Jesus  wliom  ye  have  crucified  both  Lord  and  Christ. 
Now  when  they  heard  this,  they  were  pricked  in  their 
heart,  and  said  unto  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apos- 
tles. Men  and  brethren  what  shall  we  do  ?  Then  Peter 
said  unto  them.  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of 
you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
"  And  with  many  other  words  did  he  testify  and  exhort, 
saying.  Save  yourselves  from  this  untoward  generation. 
Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  ; 
and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls."  Such  then  is  the  substance, 
and  such  were  the  effects  of  the  first  Cluistian  discourse. 
We  now  proceed  to  analyze  its  doctrines.  Does  it 
contain  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  Not  the  least 
hint  or  glimpse  of  it  from  beginning   to  end.     God  is 


276  WHAT   IS   CHRTSTIANTTY. 

spoken  of  as  one  individual  Being,  altogether  distinct 
from  Christ  and  superior  to  him  ;  as  having  wrought 
his  miracles,  when  he  was  on  earth,  "  miracles,  and 
wonders,  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him  ;"  as  hav- 
ing raised  him  from  the  dead,  exalted  him  by  his  right 
hand,  and  granted  those  miraculous  powers  now  pos- 
sessed by  the  apostles,  and  made  him  both  Lord  and 
Christ,  "  Therefore,  let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  as- 
suredly, that  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye 
have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ."  Ts  there  any 
hint  of  the  Supreme  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  any  intima- 
tion that  he  had  two  natures,  one  of  which  was  the 
Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  equal  to  the  Father,  any 
glance  even  at  his  omnipotence  and  independence  ? 
Let  the  words  of  the  apostle  decide.  "  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, a  man  approved  of  God,"  or  more  literally,  proved 
to  be  a  man  from  God  "  among  you,  by  miracles,  and 
wonders,  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him."  "  Him 
ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and 
slain,  whom  God  hath  raised  up."  Deity  certainly, 
can  be  hardly  predicated  of  such  a  being.  He  was  not 
even  I^ord  and  Christ,  by  his  own  original  right  or  na- 
ture, for  "  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus  whom  ye 
have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ."  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  likewise  mentioned  in  this  discourse,  but  how, 
as  God,  as  a  Person  of  the  Trinity,  as  a  person  at  all  ? 
'•  Having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  or  to  translate  the  Hebrew  idiom,  "the 
promised  Holy  Ghost,"  or  the  Holy  Ghost  which  was 
promised,  "  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see 
and  hear."     Can  the  third  Person  of  the  Trinity  be  re- 


WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY.  217 

ceived  from  the  First,  by  the  Second,  and  shed  forth 
on  the  apostles  ?  Miraculous  powers  might  be,  but  all 
this  ill  agrees  with  the  attributes  of  a  person.  The 
Trinity,  then,  so  far  from  being  found  in  this  first  Chris- 
tian discourse,  is  not  only  left  out,  but  contradicted. 

Is  there  anything  said  in  this  discourse  of  the  fall  of 
man,  original  sin,  total  depravity,  and  entire  inability? 
Not  one  word.  These  doctrines  are  passed  over  in  the 
most  profound  silence.  Other  doctrines  too  are  men- 
tioned, which  are  inconsistent  with  them.  "  Save  your- 
selves," says  he  ;  but  how  could  this  be,  if  tlie  soul  be 
entirely  passive  in  salvation,  if  we  are  delivered  by  a  for- 
eign power  ?  He  teaches  then,  that  men  must  save  them- 
selves in  the  use  of  their  own  natural  powers,  and  the 
extraordinary  means  which  were  then  afforded  them. 
But  what  were  they  to  do  in  order  to  be  saved  ? 
"  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  That  is,  be- 
come Christians  inwardly  and  outwardly,  by  profession 
and  practice,  and  your  sins  shall  be  blotted  out,  you 
shall  be  accepted  by  God.  Is  the  doctrine  of  conver- 
sion by  the  irresistible  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
taught  here?  Mark  well.  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized," 
and  your  sins  shall  be  forgiven,  and  then,  and  not  till 
then,  '•' ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Spiritual  influences,  all  the  spiritual  influences  here  al- 
luded to,  are  the  consequence  of  repentance  and  con- 
version, not  the  causes  of  it.  From  what  are  t!iey  to 
save  themselves?  From  the  corruption  of  their  nature, 
inherent  in  them,  in  consequence  of  which  they  are 
24 


I 


278  WHAT   IS   CHRISTIANITY. 

unable  to  will,  or  to  do,  anything  good  and  acceptable 
to  God  ?  No !  "  Save  yourselves  from  this  untoward 
generation,"  the  wickedness  and  depravity,  for  which 
that  generation  were  distinguished.  "  Then  they  that 
gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  ;  and  the  same 
day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand 
souls.  And  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostles' 
doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread  and 
in  prayers."  Now  here  is  an  instance  of  three  thou- 
sand souls  in  the  Christian  church,  converted  and  be- 
come Christians  indeed,  without  knowing  one  word  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of  Christ,  the 
Deity  and  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  vicarious  pun- 
ishment, original  sin,  entire  inability,  passive  regenera- 
tion, in  short,  the  least  intimation  of  any  of  those  doc- 
trines which  in  modern  times  are  upheld  to  be  the  very 
essence  and  potency  of  the  Gospel.  These  doctrines 
not  being  found  in  the  preaching  of  the  apostles,  of 
course  could  have  had  no  agency  in  their  conversion, 
in  their  moral  renovation  and  their  becoming  true 
Christians.  This  discourse  then,  must  contain  the  effi- 
cient doctrines  of  Christianity,  must  contain  that  which 
gives  it  its  power  over  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men. 
It  must  contain  all  of  the  Gospel,  which  makes  it  the 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  God  for  the  salvation  of  men. 
What  then  are  the  doctrines  it  contains  ?  In  the  first 
place,  the  unity,  the  perfections  and  agency  of  God  are 
taken  for  granted,  are  assumed  ;  for  the  apostle  was 
addressing  the  Jews,  to  whom  the  existence  and  attri- 
butes of  God  had  long  been  known.  Second,  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  '■'  God  hath    made   that 


WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY.  279 

same  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ."  Thirdly,  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  by 
which  every  other  doctrine  is  confirmed,  all  that  he  had 
taught  and  promised  and  threatened  them,  was  demon- 
strated to  be  true.  And  the  inference,  drawn  from  this 
by  the  apostle  was,  that  they  must  repent  and  become 
true  Christians  by  profession  and  practice. 

Now  we  ask,  is  it  not  singular,  is  it  not  astonishing, 
is  it  not  unaccountable,  that  effects  so  truly  evangelical 
as  the  conversion  of  three  thousand  souls  should  have 
been  produced  by  a  sermon,  in  which  there  is  not  one 
single  evangelical  doctrine  of  modern  times  ?  And  is 
it  not  still  more  astonishing,  that  three  thousand  souls 
should  have  been  readily  received  into  the  Christian 
church  by  the  inspired  apostles,  in  consequence  of  their 
assent  to  the  above  simple  doctrines,  and  the  very  name 
and  privileges  of  Christians  be  refused  by  uninspired 
men  to  multitudes  in  our  days,  who  believe,  and  profess 
to  believe,  the  same  with  these  primitive  disciples  ? 

The  next  discourse  of  the  apostles  to  which  I  shall 
direct  your  attention  is  that  of  Peter  to  Cornelius  and 
his  friends  at  Cesarea.  I  select  this  because  it  was  an 
address  to  heathens,  as  the  other  was  an  address  to 
Jews.  We  wish  to  see  what  doctrines  he  would  teach 
pagans  in  addition  to  those  he  had  announced  as  the 
Gospel  to  Jews.  "  Then  Peter  opened  his  mouth  and 
said.  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of 
persons  ;  But  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  him  and 
worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  with  him.  The  word 
which  God  sent  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  preaching 
peace  by  Jesus  Christ ;   (he  is  Lord  of  all)  ;  That  word, 


280  WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY. 

I  say,  ye  know,  which  was  published  throughout  all 
Judea,  and  began  from  Galilee,  after  the  baptism  which 
John  preached;  How  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power  ;  who  went  about 
doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the 
devil ;  for  God  was  with  him.  And  we  are  witnesses, 
of  all  things  which  he  did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews 
and  in  Jerusalem;  whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a 
tree :  Him  God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and  showed 
him  openly ;  Not  to  all  the  people,  but  unto  witnesses 
chosen  before  of  God,  even  to  us,  who  did  eat  and 
drink  with  him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead.  And  he 
commanded  us  to  preach  unto  the  people,  and  to  testify 
that  it  is  he  which  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  judge 
of  quick  and  dead.  To  him  give  all  the  prophets  wit- 
ness, that  through  his  name,  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins."  Now,  we  ask, 
what  new  or  additional  doctrine  we  have  here,  not 
stated  in  the  former  discourse  ?  Addressing  Gentiles, 
he  says  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  not  the  God 
of  the  Jews  only,  but  of  all  nations  and  all  men.  All 
are  in  his  sight  in  a  state  of  trial  and  probation,  accord- 
ing to  the  light  they  have,  and  if  faithful  in  the  use  of 
that  light,  have  it  equally  in  their  power  to  become  ac- 
ceptable to  God.  Is  this  consistent  or  is  it  not,  with 
the  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation,  of  the  natural 
inability  of  man  to  will  or  do  anything  good,  the  ne- 
cessity of  an  irresistible  and  supernatural  change? 

He  then  goes  on  to  mention  the  mission,  miracles, 
ministry,  and  death  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  "God 
anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 


WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY.  281 

with  power."  Here  are  what  are  called  the  three  Per- 
sons of  the  Trinity,  placed  in  such  a  light  as  entirely 
to  refute  the  doctrine.  According  to  that  theory,  it 
would  be  asserted,  that  the  First  Person  of  the  Trinity 
anointed  the  Second  Person  with  the  Third.  Beside 
the  solecism  of  such  language  as  this,  it  involves  sup- 
positions utterly  subversive  of  the  Trinitarian  hypothe- 
sis. It  supposes  the  power  of  Jesus  Christ,  without 
any  reservation  or  limitation  of  persons  or  natures,  to 
have  been  derived,  communicated  to  him  by  the  First 
Person  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Third. 
Where  is  then  his  original  and  underived  omnipotence? 
And  as  to  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  I  have 
only  to  ask  you  if  that  agrees  with  anointing,  if  one 
person  can  with  any  appearance  of  congruity  be  said  to 
be  anointed  with  another?  He  glances  likewise  at  the 
reconciliation  and  amalgamation  of  Jews  and  Gentiles 
in  the  new  religion  ;  "  preaching  peace  by  Jesus  Christ ; 
(he  is  Lord  of  all)  ;"  that  is  both  of  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles. As  Paul  afterwards  more  fully  expresses  it  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  :  "  Wherefore  remember,  that 
ye  being  in  time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh" — '•'  But  now 
in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  sometime  were  afar  off,  are 
made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For  he  is  our  peace, 
who  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the- 
middle  wall  of  partition  between  us." 

The  next  important  point   which    the  apostle   men- 
lions  is  the  resurrection.     That  he  dwells  on  with  more 
distinctness  than  in  his   sermon    to   the   Jews.     "Him 
'  God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and  showed  him  openly  ; 
Not  to  all  the  people,  but  unto  witnesses  chosen  before 
24* 


282  WHAT   IS   CHlUSTlANlTY. 

of  God,  even  to  us,  who  did  eat  and  drink  with  him 
after  he  rose  from  the  dead."  This  is  the  great  fact 
of  which  they  were  the  witnesses  and  upon  which  they 
always  insist  in  all  their  preaching.  "  And  he  com- 
manded us  to  preach  unto  the  people  and  to  testify  that 
it  is  he  which  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of 
quick  and  dead."  In  what  sense  Christ  is  here  said 
to  be  the  judge  of  quick  and  dead,  it  is  foreign  to  our 
present  purpose  to  inquire.  It  is  sufficient  to  prevent 
all  misconceptions  of  his  nature  and  character,  that  he 
is  said  to  be  ordained  of  God  to  this  office.  The  fact 
is  the  main  point,  the  all-important  disclosure,  that  there 
is  to  be  a  judgment  as  well  as  a  resurrection.  He 
closes,  as  he  did  before,  with  the  doctrine  of  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  What  then  is  the  summary  of  the 
Gospel  which  Peter  preached  to  Cornelius  ?  The  im- 
partiality of  God,  the  salvability  of  the  heathen,  the  mis- 
sion, miracles,  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  and  a  future  judgment.  This  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and  his  company. 
And  do  you  find  in  it  any  trace  of  those  peculiar  doc- 
trines which  are  now  so  often  declared  to  be  the  es- 
sence of  Christianity  ? 

We  now  pass  to  the  preaching  of  Paul,  first  to  Jews 
and  afterwards  to  Pagans.  When  Paul  was  in  Antioch 
in  Asia  Minor  he  thus  addressed  a  synagogue  of  Jews. 
"  Men  of  Israel,  and  ye  that  fear  God,  give  audience." 
"  Of  this  man's  seed"  (David's)  "  hath  God  according 
to  his  promise  raised  unto  Israel  a  Saviour,  Jesus." 
"  Men  and  brethren,  children  of  the  stock  of  Abraham, 
and  whosoever  among  you  feareth  God,  to  you  is  the 


WHAT   IS   CHRISTIANITY.  289 

word  of  this  salvation  sent.  For  they  that  dwell  at  Je- 
rusalem, and  their  rulers,  because  they  knew  liim  not, 
nor  yet  the  voices  of  the  prophets  which  are  read  every 
sabbath  day,  they  have  fulfilled  them  in  condemning 
him,  and  though  they  found  no  cause  of  death  in  him, 
yet  desired  they  Pilate  that  he  should  be  slain.  And 
when  they  had  fulfilled  all  that  was  written  of  him,  they 
took  him  down  from  the  tree  and  laid  him  in  a  sepul- 
chre. But  God  raised  him  from  the  dead :  And  he 
was  seen  many  days  of  them  which  came  up  with  him 
from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  vvlio  are  his  witnesses  unto 
the  people.  And  we  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings," 
or  the  Gospel,  the  joyful  news,  "  how  that  the  promise 
which  was  made  unto  the  fathers,  God  hath  fulfilled  the 
same  unto  us  their  children,  in  that  he  hath  raised  up 
Jesus  again," — "  Be  it  known  unto  you  therefore,  men 
and  brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  preached  unto 
you  the  forgiveness  of  sins  :  And  by  him  all  that  be- 
lieve are  justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could 
not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses."  Do  you  not 
perceive  in  this  discourse  the  same  simplicity,  the  same 
identical  doctrines,  which  were  stated  by  Peter, — the 
facts  of  the  Gospel  history,  the  mission,  ministry,  death 
and  resurrection  of  Christ  ?  This  last,  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  he  makes  to  be  the  very  Gospel  itself,  the 
very  glad  tidings  he  had  to  announce.  The  same 
prominence  he  gives  this  fact  in  one  of  his  Epistles  to 
the  Corinthians.  "Moreover  brethren,  I  declare  unto 
you  the  Gospel  which  I  preached  unto  you,  which  also 
ye  have  received,  and  wherein  ye  stand  ;  By  which  also 
ye  are  saved,  if  ye  keep  in   memory  what  I  preached 


28i  WHAT   IS   CHRISTIANITY. 

unto  you,  unless  ye  have  believed  in  vain.  For  I  de- 
livered unto  you  first  of  all,  that  which  I  also  received, 
how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  that  he  was  buried,  and  tliat  he  rose  again 
the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures  ;  and  that 
he  was  seen  of  Cephas,  then  of  the  twelve,  after  that 
he  was  seen  of  above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once." 
— "  And  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching 
vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain,"  Here  then  is  the 
nnain  fact,  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  Christianity  de- 
pends upon  it.  This  is  the  pivot,  the  fundamental 
proposition,  on  which  the  whole  system  rests.  Deny 
this,  and  you  deny  everything.  Admit  this,  and  you 
are  a  Christian,  so  far  as  faith  is  concerned.  It  con- 
tains the  germ  of  Christianity,  and  when  expanded  into 
all  its  consequences,  it  becomes  the  whole  system  of 
the  Gospel.  And  what  does  it  prove  ?  Does  it  prove 
the  Trinity,  vicarious  punishment,  human  inability, 
election  and  reprobation,  passive  regeneration,  imputed 
righteousness,  and  their  kindred  doctrines?  By  no 
means,  it  does  not  touch  them.  What  then  does  it 
prove?  It  establishes  beyond  cavil  the  doctrine  of  im- 
mortality, the  certainty  of  which  is  the  great  sanction 
of  religion  of  any  kind,  the  key-stone  of  the  edifice  of 
faith,  which  completes  and  sustains  the  whole  fabric. 
It  sets  the  seal  of  God's  assurance  upon  his  mission  and 
authority,  his  doctrines  and  his  promises,  declares  him 
to  be  what  he  claimed  to  be,  the  Messiah,  as  is  well 
expressed  by  Paul  in  the  commencement  of  his  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  "  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God,"  that 
is,  the  Messiah  "  with  power,  by  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead." 


WHAT   IS   CHRISTIANITY.  28^ 

That  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  of  the  dead,  was 
the  great  burden  of  Paul's  preaching,  appears  from 
many  detached  passages  in  the  Acts.  Before  the  Jew- 
ish council,  he  pleads  :  "  of  the  hope  and  resurrection  of 
the  dead  I  am  called  in  question."  Before  Agrippa  he 
pleads  :  "  And  now  I  stand  and  am  judged  for  the  hope 
of  the  promise  made  of  God  unto  our  fathers ;  unto 
which  promise,  our  twelve  tribes,  instantly  serving  God 
day  and  night,  hope  to  come.  For  which  hope's  sake, 
king  Agrippa,  I  am  accused  of  the  Jews.  Why  should 
it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible  with  you,  that  God 
should  raise  the  dead  ?"  That  there  were  other  doc- 
trines mingled  with  these,  respecting  the  conduct  of  life, 
we  have  no  reason  to  doubt.  For  in  his  defence  before 
Felix,  he  connects  with  this  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
a  moral  conduct  strictly  conformed  to  the  dictates  of 
conscience.  "  And  have  hope  toward  God,  which  they 
themselves  also  allow,  that  there  shall  be  a  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  the  unjust.  And 
herein  do  I  exercise  myself,  to  have  always  a  conscience 
void  of  oflTence  toward  God  and  toward  man."  After- 
wards it  is  said,  "  And  as  he  reasoned  of  righteousness, 
temperance,  and  judgment  to  come,  Felix  trembled." 

The  last  apostolic  discourse  which  we  shall  notice,  is 
the  famous  and  remarkable  speech  of  Paul  before  the 
Athenians  on  Mars'  Hill.  Here  he  addressed  an  audi- 
ence which  were  ignorant  not  only  of  the  Gospel  but  of 
Judaism.  Here  then  it  was  to  be  expected  that  Paul 
would  preach  the  whole  Gospel,  not  only  that  which  the 
Gospel  added  to  Judaism,  but  that  which  it  contained  in 
common  with  it.     We  should  expect  him  to  begin  as  he 


286  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY. 

does,  at  the  foundation,  the  Being,  Attributes,  and  Pro- 
vidence of  the  one  God.  As  before,  in  their  addresses 
to  the  Jews,  the  apostles  went  immediately  to  the  mis- 
sion and  history  of  Christ,  so  in  this,  an  address  to  Gen- 
tiles, the  one  God  is  the  topic  principally  enlarged  up- 
on. "  Ye  men  of  Athens,  I  perceive  that  in  all  things 
ye  are  too  superstitious.  For  as  1  passed  by  and  be- 
held your  devotions,  I  found  an  altar  with  this  inscrip- 
tion, To  THE  UNKNOWN  GoD.  Wliom  therefore  ye  ig- 
norantly  worship,  him  declare  I  unto  you.  God,  that 
made  the  world  and  all  things  therein,  seeing  that  he  is 
Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  dwelleth  not  in  temples 
made  with  hands ;  neither  is  worshipped  with  men's 
hands,  as  though  he  needed  anything,  seeing  he  giveth 
to  all  life  and  breath  and  all  things :  and  hath  made  of 
one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face 
of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the  times  before  ap- 
pointed, and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation  ;  that  they 
should  seek  the  Lord,  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  him 
and  find  him,  though  he  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us ; 
for  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being ;  as 
certain  also  of  your  own  poets  have  said,  For  we  are 
also  his  offspring.  Forasmuch  then'  as  we  are  the  off- 
spring of  God,  we  ought  not  to  think  that  the  Godhead 
is  like  unto  gold,  or  silver,  or  stone,  graven  by  art  and 
man's  device.  And  the  times  of  this  ignorance  God 
winked  at ;  but  now  commandeth  all  men  everywhere 
to  repent ;  because  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  the  which 
he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man 
whom  he  hath  ordained  ;  whereof  he  hath  given  as- 
surance unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead." 


WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY.  287 

Now  we  ask,  what  are  the  doctrines  contained  in  this 
discourse,  which  Paul  announced  to  the  Athenians  as  a 
summary  of  the  Gospel  ?  They  are  the  unity,  perfec- 
tions, providence,  and  paternal  character  of  God,  the 
divine  mission  and  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  demon- 
strated by  his  resurrection,  and  repentance  in  anticipa- 
tion of  a  future  righteous  judgment.  Where  then  are 
the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  as  they  are  called  ? 
Passed  over  in  the  most  profound  silence. 

We  have  now  gone  over  the  principal  discourses  of 
the  apostles  in  the  first  thirty  years  of  their  ministry,  as 
recorded  in  the  Acts,  and  what  do  they  teach  ?  The 
Trinity  ?  Not  one  word  of  it  that  we  can  find.  The 
Unity  ?  Yes.  It  is  taught  in  every  discourse.  The 
Deity  of  Christ  ?  Nowhere.  What  then  ?  His  divii^e 
mission  and  authority.  "  God  anointed  him  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,"  and  raised  him  from  the 
dead.  The  Deity  and  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 
That  is  denied,  inasmuch  as  it  is  something  given,  com- 
municated, poured  out.  Remission  of  sins  on  account 
of  Christ's  sufferings  ?  By  no  means.  "  Repent,  that 
your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  Total  inabilityj  election 
and  reprobation  ?  Not  at  all.  "  Now  commandeth  all 
men  everywhere  to  repent."  Salvation  by  foreign,  irre- 
sistible power  ?  Nothing  like  it.  "  Save  yourselves  from 
this  untoward  generation." 

What  then  is  the  grand  conclusion  to  which  we  are 
brought  by  this  examination  of  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles?  The  irresistible  conclusion  is,  that  these  pe- 
culiar doctrines  we  have  been  so  long  examining,  are 
not  found  there. 


288  WHAT   IS   CHRISTIANITY. 

If  they  are  not  found  in  the  preaching  of  the  apostles, 
then  they  make  no  part  of  the  Gospel,  are  merely  hu- 
man inventions  which  have  been  added  to  the  Gospel 
by  the  fancy  and  imagination  of  man.  They  are  the  hay 
and  stubble  which  have  been  added  to  the  silver  and 
gold  of  the  true  foundation  by  man's  device.  And  since 
the  doctrines  they  did  preach  had  the  power  to  reform 
and  renovate  men,  and  make  them  true  Christians,  we 
infer  without  danger  of  a  mistake,  that  the  whole  moral 
and  spiritual  power  of  the  Gospel  is  contained  in  those 
doctrines.  And,  of  course,  whatever  other  doctrines 
have  since  been  added  to  these,  and  preached  in  con- 
junction-with  them,  the  effect  has  been  produced  by 
the  few  and  simple  elements  taught  by  the  apostles,  and 
not  by  the  superadded  doctrines  of  men.  And  as  the 
Gospel  continues  forever  the  same,  these  are  the  doc- 
trines which  now  produce  all  that  moral  and  spiritual 
effect,  which  the  Gospel  is  at  this  day  producing  in  the 
world. 

These  are,  as  we  have  seen,  the  existence,  perfections, 
providence,  and  paternal  character  of  God,  the  mission, 
miracles,  teaching,  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  the 
remission  of  sins  upon  repentance,  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  and  a  just  judgment,  and  retribution  in  a  fu- 
ture world.  These  must  contain  all  the  elements  of 
moral  power  in  the  Gospel,  for  they  are  the  whole  of  it, 
according  to  the  apostles.  A  striking  evidence  that  this 
was  the  substance  of  what  was  thought  necessary  for  a 
Christian  to  believe  in  the  first  ages,  is  to  be  found  in 
its  coincidence  with  the  most  ancient  standard  of  faith 
we  have,  which  has  come  down  under  the  name  of  the 


WHAT   IS   CHRISTIANITY.  XOW 

Apostles'  Creed.  "  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty, 
Maker  of  heaven  and  earth  :  And  in  Jesus  Christ  his 
only  Son,  our  Lord  ;  who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  suffered  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried  ;  He  descended 
into  hell  ;  the  third  dry  he  rose  from  the  dead  ;  He  as- 
cended into  heaven  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God 
the  Father  Almighty  ;  from  thence  he  shall  come  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  I  believe  in  the  Holy 
Ghost;  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  ;  the  Communion  of 
Saints  ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  and  the  life  everlasting."  There  is  almost  as  lit- 
tle mention  of  the  peculiar  docrines  we  have  been  con- 
troverting, in  this  early  Creed,  as  there  is  in  the  preach- 
ing of  the  apostles ;  and  had  this  Creed  never  been 
lengthened  in  after  times,  there  would  have  been  but 
little  controversy  in  the  Christian  Churcli. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  moral  efficiency  of  these  doc- 
trines. The  very  essence  of  all  religion  is  summed  up 
in  its  first  article,  the  existence,  perfections,  providence, 
and  paternal  character  of  God.  He  is  the  eternal  cen- 
tre and  fountain  of  religion.  He  is  the  prime  moving 
and  all  pervading  power.  Without  him  the  universe  is 
a  blank  ;  and  without  him  religion  could  no  more  exist 
than  vegetation  without  the  sun.  "  This,"  said  our  Sa- 
viour, "  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the 
only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent." 
Did  not  Christ  understand  the  nature  of  his  own  reli- 
gion, the  true  sources  of  its  moral  power  ?  Accordingly, 
he  came  to  show  us  the  Father.  Give  me  the  know- 
ledge of  a  perfect  God,  such  as  Jesus  has  described  our 
25 


290  WHAT   IS   CHRISTIANITY. 

heavenly  Father  to  be,  and  you  have  established  in  my 
mind  the  mightiest  moral  agency  which  can  operate 
upon  me.  His  goodness  calls  forth  my  gratitude  and 
love  ;  his  purity  and  holiness  arouse  in  my  mind  a 
strong  aspiration  to  be  like  him ;  his  all  pervading 
presence  and  agency  awaken  in  me  a  salutary  fear  of 
offending  him.  An  object  is  thus  given  my  devotions, 
which  will  make  them  a  fountain  of  spiritual  influences 
springing  up  into  everlasting  life.  I  must  then  act  with 
reference  to  him.  I  feel  that  "  it  is  God  that  worketh 
in  me  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure." 
This  then  is  the  leading  source  of  moral  and  spiritual 
power  in  the  Gospel,  and  it  is  independent  of  these  pe- 
culiar doctrines  we  have  been  discussing.  We  are 
unable  to  conceive  how  any  moral  power  is  gained  by 
dividing  this  one  God  into  three  distinctions  or  persons. 
One  All-perfect  and  Infinite  Being  is  certainly  adequate 
to  all  the  purposes  that  three  are.  I  can  see  confusion 
and  weakened  influence  in  the  idea  of  three  Persons  in 
God,  but  no  advantage  whatever. 

The  next  source  of  moral  power  is  the  character  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Paul  at  Athens,  you  recollect,  preached 
in  addition  to  the  one  God,  "  in  whom  we  live,  and 
move,  and  have  our  being,"  "  Jesus  and  the  resurrec- 
tion." "  This  is  life  eternal,"  or  the  source  or  cause  of 
life  eternal,  •'  that  they  might  know  Thee  the  only  true 
God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  He  who 
knows  Jesus  Christ  as  he  is,  has  operating  within  him  a 
spiritual  power  of  another  kind,  but  scarcely  less  potent 
than  that  of  God  himself.  For  in  him  is  exhibited  hu- 
man perfection.    As  God  supplies  the  all  powerful  motive 


WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY.  291 

to  action,  so  Jesus  furnishes  the  rule  and  guide.  There 
is  not  a  difficulty  in  human  life,  there  is  not  a  situation 
so  abject  and  perplexing,  that  is  not  solved  and  made 
easy  by  one  glance  at  Christ,  one  clear  conception  of 
the  spirit  that  was  in  him.  The  conviction  is  over- 
whelming, that  the  reason  why  any  are  weary  and 
heavy  laden  with  the  burdens  of  this  world  is.  that  they 
have  not  learned  of  him  who  was  •'  meek  and  lowly  in 
heart."  Christ  laboring  and  suffering  in  the  cause  of 
man,  in  obscurity,  poverty,  persecution,  supported  only 
by  a  pure  heart,  and  a  reliance  on  God,  closing  his  life 
in  agony  under  the  triumph  of  malice,  and  then  ascend- 
ing to  glory,  is  the  most  omnipotent  Gospel  which  was 
ever  preached  to  man.  Its  echoes  sounded  forth  from  the 
hills  of  Judea,  and  still  are  ringing  round  the  world. 
They  touch  a  chord  in  the  human  heart  of  sympathy, 
and  consolation,  which  wakens  all  of  virtuous  energy 
there  is  in  the  soul.  The  life  of  Christ  is  a  solution  of 
the  high  and  otherwise  inexplicable  mysteries  of  this 
dark  and  uncertain  world.  When  exhibited  to  mankind 
as  he  went  about  doing  good,  or  hanging  upon  the  cross, 
he  becomes  a  source  of  moral  and  spiritual  power  to  the 
Gospel,  which  no  mind  can  estimate,  and  no  tongue  can 
tell.  He  "  draws  all  men  unto  him"  by  the  cords  of  love. 
The  third  source  of  moral  and  spiritual  power  in  the 
Gospel,  is  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  I  mean,  its  superhu- 
man wisdom,  its  intuitive  certainty  and  truth,  by  which 
it  carries  irresistible  conviction  to  the  human  mind  and 
heart.  The  Gospel  in  this  sense  is  the  wisdom  of  God, 
and  therefore,  the  power  of  God.  This  is  the  great  and 
universal  evidence  by  which  it  is  ever  accompanied.     It 


292  WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY. 

carries  conviction,  because  it  finds  a  witness  in  the  in- 
ner man  of  its  eternal  truth.  It  was  this  coincidence, 
which,  when  Paul  reasoned  of  righteousness,  temper- 
ance, and  a  judgment  to  come,  made  Felix  tremble,  the 
judge  clothed  in  purple  before  the  prisoner  in  chains. 
He  found  the  Gospel  was  in  him  before,  and  the  rea- 
soning of  Paul  revived  the  crushed  authority  of  his 
own  conscience.  The  Gospel  without,  responded  to  by 
conscience  within,  was  too  much  for  the  hardened  Ro- 
man, and  he  trembled  and  was  overcome  with  fear.  So 
is  it  ever.  The  moral  evidence  of  the  Gospel  strikes 
many  hearts,  even  of  those  whose  understandings  its  out- 
ward testimony  fails  to  convince,  and  who  never  submit 
their  lives  to  its  power.  And  thousands  of  the  human 
race,  like  the  rude  officers  of  the  Sanhedrim,  quail  be- 
fore the  humble  Nazarene,  and  confess  that  "  never 
man  spake  like  this  man." 

The  third  doctrine  to  which  the  Gospel  owes  its 
moral  and  spiritual  power,  is  the  ofTer  of  mercy  from  God, 
of  the  pardon  and  remission  of  sin,  expressly  and  ex- 
plicitly made  to  mankind  through  Jesus  Christ,  on  con- 
dition of  true  repentance  and  reformation.  This  was,  it 
is  true,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  doctrine  of  Judaism  and 
of  natural  religion.  Yet  through  them  it  does  not  come 
with  that  directness  and  power  with  which  it  comes  by 
an  express  ambassador  and  mediator  from  heaven,  pro- 
claiming "  Repent,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out." 
This  makes  certain  the  great  motive  for  the  exercise  of 
repentance,  the  certainty  of  its  efficacy  and  its  accepta- 
bleness  with  God.  All  men  feel  that  they  need  this  par- 
don, for  all  men  feel  that  they   have   sinned  and  come 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY.  293 

short.  The  overtures  of  mercy  made  under  such  affect- 
ing circumstances  as  the  suffering  hfe,  and  bloody,  pain- 
ful death  of  Christ,  are  calculated  to  make  a  powerful 
impression  upon  the  world.  This  is  what  gives  power 
to  the  ministers  of  reconciliation,  when  they  stand  up 
and  proclaim,  that  "  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto 
them  ;"  and  when  they  "  as  ambassadors  for  Christ,  as 
though  God  did  beseech"  men  through  them,  they 
"  pray  men,  in  Christ's  steaci,  to  be  reconciled  to  God." 

But  the  grand  doctrine  of  Christianity,  both  for  power 
and  importance,  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  As  it 
is  tfie  corner  stone  on  which  the  entire  system  rests,  so 
it  is  the  animating  principle  which  breathes  a  living  en- 
ergy into  the  whole,  and  fixes  it  in  the  soul  of  man  as 
its  great  and  commanding  motive.  Deny  this  or  omit 
it,  and  Unity  or  Trinity,  purchased  or  free  forgiveness, 
predestination  or  self-determined  choice,  or  any  other 
doctrine,  or  negation  of  doctrine,  becomes  matter  of  en- 
tire indifference.  This  life  is  an  enigma  utterly  beyond 
the  powers  of  man  to  explain.  Human  wisdom,  in  this 
case,  concentrates  itself  into  this  brutish  proposition  : 
"  Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die." 

Establish  this  doctrine  and  the  brute  disappears,  and 
the  angel  rises  in  its  place.  Man,  from  a  mere  animal, 
becomes  a  spiritual  being.  No  longer  absorbed  in  the 
frivolities  about  him,  he  listens  to  the  distant  roar  of  the 
ocean  of  eternity,  and  he  is  still.  He  becomes  a  thought- 
ful, intellectual,  conscientious  being;  he  awakes  from 
the  lethargy,  the  moral  death  of  vicious  indulgence,  to  a 
life  of  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy. 
25* 


294  WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY. 

For,  in  the  fifth  and  last  place,  the  resurrection  makes 
sure  the  most  powerful  doctrine  which  can  operate  on 
the  will  of  man,  the  judgment  to  come.  That  judg- 
ment then  becomes  certain,  because  our  own  con- 
sciences have  condemned  us  already.  The  judgment 
of  conscience  we  cannot  reverse,  nor  change,  nor  resist. 
What  appears  to  us  now,  in  our  character  and  conduct, 
unworthy  and  wicked,  will  appear  so  then,  and  with  ten- 
fold clearness  in  the  light  of  eternity.  Sin,  doing  wrong, 
becomes  a  word  of  more  portentous  meaning  than  when 
pent  up  in  the  narrow  confines  of  this  world.  Eternity, 
with  all  its  retributions,  is  brought  to  bear  on  the  present 
life.  And  where  is  the  wretch  so  degraded,  whose  base 
schemes  are  not  sometimes  arrested,  whose  outstretched 
hand  docs  not  sometimes  pause  from  its  purpose,  at  the 
thought  of  that  judgment,  which  Christ  has  pictured 
among  the  floating  images  of  a  coming  eternity? 

These  are  the  doctrines,  the  simple  but  sublime  doc- 
trines of  the  apostles,  and  not  the  petty  dogmas  of  con- 
tending sects,  which  are  Christianity,  and  which  con- 
stitute the  moral  and  spiritual  power  of  the  Gospel. 
Then,  as  now,  they  were  the  efficient  means  of  the  sanc- 
tification  and  salvation  of  man,  and  the  moral  regenera- 
tion of  the  world.  "  1  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ ;  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to 
every  one  that  believeth." 


LECTURE  XII. 


WHAT  IS  IT  TO   BE  A   CHRISTIAN. 

ACTS,  XI.  96. 

"And  the  disciples  were  called  christians  first  in  antioch." 

What  is  it  to  be  a  Christian  ?  What  is  it  necessary 
for  a  man  to  believe,  and  what  is  it  necessary  for  him 
to  practise  in  order  to  be  a  Christian,  and  as  such  en- 
titled to  the  name,  privileges,  and  hopes  of  a  Christian  ? 
It  is  my  design  in  this  discourse  to  promote  the  cause  of 
piety  and  charity.  Of  piety,  by  leading  each  one  to  self- 
examination  and  earnest  self-improvement,  and  of  chari- 
ty, by  giving  you  the  scriptural  and  reasonable  standard 
for  judging  of  the  Christian  character  and  rights  of  oth- 
ers. I  address  those,  who  have  a  sincere  desire  to  know 
the  truth,  and  to  embrace  it,  who  wish  to  understand 
their  own  rights,  and  while  they  maintain  them  are 
equally  willing  to  learn  and  respect  the  rights  of  others. 
I  do  not  address  that  class  of  persons,  who  would  give 
or  withhold  the  Christian  name,  just  as  they  thought  it 
expedient,  in  order  to  produce  popular  effect,  to  raise 
up  one  sect  and  pull  down  another,  to  deter  the  multi- 
tude from  fair  and  impartial  examination,  by  hard  names 


^tdS  WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN. 

and  odious  imputations.  Such  men  I  do  not  address, 
for  light,  conviction,  is  what  they  do  not  want.  They 
already  know  better  than  they  do.  I  address  those  who 
are  earnest  inquirers  after  truth  and  holiness,  those  who 
wish  to  unite,  not  scatter  the  flock  of  Christ ;  those  who 
wish  to  find  in  tlie  Creeds  of  different  sects  points  of 
resemblance  instead  of  points  of  diflference. 

It  has  been  common,  we  know,  for  every  sect  into 
which  the  church  has  been  divided,  to  insist  on  their 
own  peculiarities  as  the  essentials  of  Christianity.  But 
if  this  be  allowed,  what  follows  ?  It  follows  that  every 
other  sect,  all  other  sects,  who  do  not  hold  to  the  same 
are  not  Christians.  It  unchurches  and  excommunicates 
all  the  rest  of  Christendom.  If  the  Catholic  insists  that 
every  article  of  his  Creed  is  essential  to  Christianity 
and  indispensable  to  salvation,  then  it  will  follow  that 
all  Protestants  are  not  Christians.  They  may  be  very 
moral,  devout,  conscientious  men,  and  may  stand  well 
on  the  ground  of  mere  natural  religion,  but  in  Chris- 
tianity they  have  no  part  nor  lot.  They  are  neither  en- 
titled to  the  name  nor  privileges  of  Christians.  They 
have  departed  from  the  great  body  of  the  church,  as  it 
was  handed  down  from  the  apostles,  they  reject  its  au- 
thority, they  deny  transubstantiation,  they  refuse  to  sub- 
mit to  the  enactments  and  Creeds  of  councils,  they  set 
at  nought  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  religion  of 
Christ,  and  of  course  are  not  Christians.  Their  priest- 
hood are  destitute  of  all  spiritual  power  and  authority, 
their  ministrations  of  the  word  and  ordinances  are  null 
and  void,  and  they  themselves  are  rebels  against  the 
authority  of  Christ  in  the  person  of  his  vicar  the  bishop 
of  Rome. 


WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN.  297 

The  Protestant  appeals  from  this  decision.  He  de- 
nies the  right  of  the  church  of  Rome,  or  of  any  other 
church  to  legislate  for  his  conscience.  He  asserts  "  the 
sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  right  of  private 
judgment.^^  He  appeals  to  the  Scriptures,  and  denies 
that  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  tlie  Roman  Catholic  church 
are  found  in  the  Bible,  and  calls  them  human  inven- 
tions. He  appeals  to  the  Gospel  method  of  judging 
of  true  discipleship,  "  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them."  The  true  faith  is  tested  by  its  power  to  purify 
the  heart,  and  overcome  the  world.  The  lives  and 
characters  of  Protestants  have  exhibited  such  fruits. 
Their  holy  lives,  passed  in  all  godliness  and  honesty, 
have  demonstrated  the  sufficiency  of  their  faith  for  the 
only  purpose  for  which  faith  is  valuable,  to  prepare  the 
soul  for  heaven.  But  the  Catholic  rejoins,  there  is  not 
an  article  of  our  Creed,  which  is  not  drawn  immedi- 
ately from  Scripture  and  may  be  supported  from  it. 
And  one  doctrine  to  which  you  object,  and  which  you 
deny,  is  asserted  in  so  many  words,  "  this  is  my  body." 
Now  if  you  deny  this,  you  contradict  Christ,  and  deny 
the  Bible  ;  and  if  you  deny  the  Bible,  you  are  no  Chris- 
tian, whatever  you  may  pretend.  And  as  to  your  holi- 
ness and  good  works,  they  may  appear  to  men  very  fair 
and  specious,  you  may  exhibit  a  great  deal  of  zeal  and 
fervency  and  outward  morality,  but  if  your  faith  is 
wrong,  your  actions  cannot  be  right.  They  do  not 
proceed  from  the  right  motive.  Your  faith  is  not  right, 
and  previous  to  your  conversion  to  the  right  faith  your 
best  actions  are  only  splendid  sins. 

The  Protestant  replies,  It  is  not  reasonable   to  sup- 


298  WHAT  IS  IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN. 

pose  that  Christ's  words  are  to  be  taken  literally  when 
he  says,  "  this  is  my  body,"  and  as  to  our  characters, 
you  cannot  judge  men's  hearts ;  God  only  can  do  that. 
As  man  cannot  go  deeper  than  the  outward  actions,  so 
he  exceeds  his  powers  and  presumptuously  arrogates 
the  prerogative  of  God  if  he  judges  the  heart  bad  on 
account  of  opinions,  when  the  life  is  good. 

The  Catholic  answers  with  surprise  and  scorn.  Un- 
reasonable !  So  you  pretend  to  set  up  your  carnal  rea- 
son in  opposition  to  Scripture  !  You  reject  a  doctrine 
plainly  stated  in  so  many  words  in  Scripture,  merely 
because  it  contradicts  your  fallible  reason  !  If  such  be 
the  principles  on  which  you  proceed,  there  is  an  end  to 
the  authority  of  revelation.  We  may  as  well  have  no 
Scriptures,  as  to  interpret  them,  not  according  to  their 
literal  import,  but  according  to  our  reason.  To  dissent 
from  the  great  body  of  the  Church,  and  from  the  doc- 
trine and  authority  handed  down  in  direct  and  unbroken 
succession  from  the  apostles,  is  heresy,  and  heretics  are 
not  Christians,  are  not  entitled  to  the  Christian  name 
and  privileges.  So  far  from  being  acknowledged  as 
Christians  they  are  to  be  excommunicated  and  cast  off. 
For  this  we  have  the  express  warrant  of  Scripture. 
"  A  man  that  is  an  heretic,  after  the  first  and  second 
admonition,  reject;  knowing  that  he  that  is  such,  is 
subverted  and  sinneth."  The  conscientious  Catholic 
from  principle,  the  partisan  Catholic  from  policy,  in  all 
those  places  where  the  Protestant  heresy  was  rife  and 
likely  to  spread,  would  warn  all  good  Catholics  against 
the  new  doctrine  as  a  soul  destroying  error.  They 
would  denounce  its  teachers  as  bad  and  dangerous  men. 


WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE    A   CHRISTIAN.  299 

they  would  forbid  their  people  to  listen  to  their  teach- 
ing, and  do  all  in  their  power  to  throw  discredit  on 
fheir  cause. 

The  Protestant  would  complain  of  this,  as  an  inva- 
sion of  his  Christian  liberty.  But  if  he  belonged  to 
any  sect  of  Protestants  who  sustain  a  Creed,  he  would 
complain  to  his  own  condemnation.  Suppose  him  to 
belong  to  the  English  Episcopal  Church.  He  protests 
against  the  Church  of  Rome's  legislating  for  his  con- 
science, on  the  ground  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  right  of  private  judgment.  But  then  he 
turns  round  and  legislates  for  the  consciences  of  others. 
He  frames  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Religion,  and  de- 
clares that  the  sum  of  Christianity  is  contained  in  them. 
And  although  he  does  not  say  that  all  who  do  not  as- 
sent to  these  Articles  are  not  Christians,  yet  he  does 
what  is  infinitely  worse,  he  treats  them  as  if  they  were 
not  Christians.  He  deprives  them  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  Christians.  He  repels  them  from  Chris- 
tian ordinances,  he  shuts  them  out  of  the  ministry  of 
the  Church,  as  much  as  if  they  were  heathens  or  Ma- 
hometans. He  goes  further,  and  shuts  out  the  Dissen- 
ter, not  only  from  his  rights  as  a  Christian,  but  from  his 
rights  as  a  citizen.  He  cuts  him  off  from  all  share  in 
the  patrimony  of  the  Church,  which  was  given  by  the 
pious  of  past  ages  to  the  whole  body  of  believers.  He 
excludes  him  from  all  civil  offices  of  honor,  trust,  and 
emolument.  The  bare  denial  of  the  Christian  name  is 
a  mere  trifle  compared  to  all  this.  The  Churchman 
either  believes  the  Dissenter  a  Christian,  or  he  does  not. 
If  he  does,  he  is  bound  to  extend  to  him  the  equal  rights 


300  WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE   A   CHRISTIAN. 

of  a  Christian.  If  he  does  not,  then  he  must  confess 
himself  just  as  bigoted  towards  the  Dissenter  as  the 
Catholic  is  towards  him. 

The  Dissenter  complains  of  this  in  his  turn  and  thinks 
himself  hardly  and  unjustly  treated.  All  of  the  name 
combine  together  and  overthrow  the  Established  Church. 
But  have  their  former  oppressions  and  sufferings  taught 
them  forbearance  and  respect  for  the  rights  of  con- 
science and  of  private  judgment?  Not  all  all.  The 
first  thing  they  do,  on  coming  into  power,  is  to  legislate 
for  the  consciences  of  others,  and  frame  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession,  a  burden  still  more  heavy  than  had 
ever  been  imposed  upon  the  rational  soul  of  man.  As 
little  mercy  was  shown  to  the  Dissenters  from  that,  as 
there  had  been  to  them  when  they  were  Dissenters. 
That  Creed  was  transplanted  to  this  country,  and  on 
our  American  soil,  human  blood  has  flowed  at  the  whip- 
ping post,*  the  lives  of  men  have  been  sacrificed  '  on 
the  gallows  for  dissenting  from  a  Protestant  faith  which 
set  up  for  the  motto  of  its  banner  when  it  separated 
from  the  Church  of  Rome,  The  suFFiciENcr  of   the 

SCRIPTURES   AND  THE   RIGHT  OF   PRIVATE  JUDGMENT. 

Soon  these  Dissenters  began  to  dissent  from  each 
other.  There  sprung  up  the  sect  of  the  Baptists,  and 
claimed  to  be  the  only  true  church  in  existence.  They 
(I  mean  the  Particular  Baptists)  unchurched,  and  of 
course  denied  the  Christian   name  to   all   Christendom 

*  In  1650,  a  man  of  the  name  of  Holmes,  received  thirty  lashes  at 
the  whipping  post  in  Boston,  for  professing  and  teaching  the  doctrines 
of  the  Baptists.  On  the  27th  of  Octobei",  1659,  three  persons  suffered 
death  by  the  common  hangman  in  the  same  place  from  the  Puritans  of 
New  England,  for  their  adherence  to  the  sect  of  the  Quakers. 


WHAT  IS  IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN.  301 

but  themselves.  None  could  be  Christians  except  those 
who  have  been  baptized  by  immersion.  None  others 
had  the  promise  of  salvation.  "  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  But  he  that  is  not  im- 
mersed is  not  baptized.  He  is  not  a  Christian  and 
must  be  repelled  from  the  Christian  ordinances  ;  he  has 
no  promise,  no  reasonable  hope  of  salvation.  Having 
broken  one  commandment  he  is  "  guilty  of  all."  He 
is  without  the  pale  of  God's  covenanted  mercy,  and 
consequently  exposed  to  damnation. 

Thus  you  perceive  how  easy  it  is  for  any  sect,  great 
or  small,  to  erect  its  own  peculiar  dogmas  into  the 
standard  and  criterion  of  Christian  faith,  and  deny  the 
Christian  name,  and  rights  and  ordinances  to  all  those 
who  will  not  receive  their  creed  ;  and  moreover  to  sup- 
port this  usurpation  from  the  Scriptures  by  specious 
and  plausible  arguments.  We  have  seen  too,  that  all 
have  been  disposed  to  exercise  this  usurpation  when 
they  have  had  the  power.  You  perceive  then  that  it 
is  unsafe  to  adopt  the  peculiarities  of  any  sect  as  indis- 
pensable to  constitute  a  Christian.  It  must  be  some- 
thing common  to  them  all,  or  all  are  not  Christians. 
And  if  all  are  not  Christians,  who  is  to  decide  who  are 
and  who  are  not  ?  Every  sectof  course  will  maintain  that 
they  are  the  true  Church,  and  if  they  insist  that  all  their 
peculiarities  are  essential,  then  all  who  do  not  assent  tq 
them  are  not  Christians.  But  if  we  examine  this  matter 
a  little  closer  we  find  that  these  sects,  minute  as  they  are, 
are  divided  among  themselves,  and  each  party  are  more 
tenacious  of  the  differences  between  themselves  than 
they  are  of  those  points  in  which  they  differ  from  other 


30*2  WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE   A   CHRISTIAN. 

seels,  and  oppose  and  persecute  each  other  with  more 
rancour  than  they  do  any  one  else.  Are  sectarians  then 
to  be  trusted  with  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ? 
By  no  means.  There  is  no  reason  why  these  subdi- 
visions may  not  again  subdivide,  and  so  go  on  till  each 
individual  shall  have  a  church  of  his  own  of  which  he 
is  the  only  true  and  accepted  member. 

But  at  length  a  sect  arises  determined  to  carry  out 
the  principles  of  the  Reformation  not  only  in  name  but 
in  fact.  They  abjure  all  creeds  and  take  the  Bible  as 
their  only  standard  of  faith.  They  study  it  by  the  best 
lights  which  they  can  command,  and  they  find  that 
many  doctrines  contained  in  the  creeds  are  not  found 
in  the  Bible,  such  as  the  Trinity,  the  two  natures  of 
Christ,  the  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Spirit,  original 
sin,  vicarious  punishment,  irresistible  conversion,  and 
their  kindred  doctrines.  They  proclaim  this  to  the 
world  as  the  result  of  impartial,  conscientious  examiha- 
•tion  ;  and  straight  the  old  cry  of  heresy  and  unbelief  is 
raised  against  them.  On  the  first  opening  of  this  church, 
a  learned  Professor*  addressed  the  inhabitants  of  this 
community  in  such  language  as  this,  "  He  who  does 
not  receive  the  doctrine  of  man's  guilt  and  depravity 
by  nature,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  and  atone- 
ment of  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  sanctifying  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  does  not  receive  the  Gospel  and  is  con- 
sequently no  Christian.  It  follows  with  irresistible  con- 
viction to  my  mind  that  he  who  rejects  these  funda- 
mental truths,  however  respectable,  virtuous,  and  ap- 
parently devout  he  may  be,  rejects  Christianity  as  really, 

*  Samuel  Miller,  D.  D.  of  Princeton. 


WHAT   IS   IT  TO  BE    A   CHRISTIAN.  303 

ihongh  not  under  precisely  the  same  circumstances,  yet 
as  really  as  any  Deist  ever  did.  And  that  he  cannot 
with  propriety  be  called  a  Christian  in  any  sense.'' 
"  Their  preaching  is  to  be  avoided  as  blasphemy,  their 
publications  are  to  be  abhorred  as  pestiferous,  their  or- 
dinances are  to  be  held  unworthy  of  regard  as  Chris- 
tian institutions  ;  and  these  things  being  so,  you  ought 
to  regard  a  proposition  to  go  and  hear  them  preach  or 
to  read  their  publications,  as  you  would  a  proposition 
to  hear  a  preacher  of  open  infidelity,  or  to  read  an  art- 
fid  publication  of  a  follower  of  Herbert  or  Hume." 

Such  is  the  language,  which  a  Protestant  Divine,  of 
the  nineteenth  century  takes  upon  himself  to  use  con- 
cerning persons  who  meet  together  to  worship  God  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  and  whom  he  supposes  to  be  "  re- 
spectable, virtuous,  and  apparently  devout,"  merely 
because  they  do  not  receive  what  he  chooses  to  deem 
the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity.  Such  persons 
he  chooses  to  class  with  the  open  revilers  of  Christ  and 
his  religion,  and  who  labor  to  uproot  and  destroy  it. 
But  can  he  be  a  Protestant  who  writes  thus,  one  who 
acknowledges  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
right  of  private  judgment  ?  Is  he  not  aware  that  the 
denunciations  of  the  church  of  Rome  are  quite  as  vio- 
lent against  him  and  all  Protestants,  as  iiis  are  against 
those  whom  he  condemns  ?  Is  he  not  aware  tiiat  Catho- 
lics are  warned  from  his  ministrations,  and  his  publica- 
tions, with  quite  as  deep  a  horror  as  he  warns  his  own 
followers  against  those  whom  he  denounces  ?  Is  he 
not  aware  how  feeble  and  small  his  voice  is  heard  com- 
pared with  the  thunders  of  the  Vatican  ;  he  a  partisan 


304  WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE   A   CHRISTIAN. 

leader  of  small  fragment,  of  a  small  division,  of  a  small 
minority,  beside  the  supreme  Pontiff  of  the  Eternal  City, 
the  acknowledged  head  of  the  most  ancient  and  most 
numerous  community  of  Christ's  professed  followers  on 
earth  ? 

The  Presbyterian  of.  whom  I  speak  will  perhaps  an- 
swer to  this,  "  There  is  a  great  difference  between  my 
denunciations  of  the  Unitarians,  and  the  Catholic's  de- 
nunciations of  me.  /  linow  that  I  am  right.  The 
Catholic  does  not  know  that  he  is  right.  Besides,  the 
Unitarians  have  no  religion.  They  do  not  go  to  con- 
ferences and  prayer-meetings.  They  attend  balls  and 
parties  of  pleasure  and  conform  to  the  world.  A  reli- 
gion which  produces  such  fruits  is  no  religion  at  alK 
Charity  to  such  a  religion  is  treason  to  Christ."  But  if 
this  be  the  standard  of  Christian  character,  what  may 
not  the  Catholic  priest  say  to  him  ?  He  may  say,  "  It 
is  very  evident  that  you  have  no  religion.  You  do  not 
go  to  mass  at  early  dawn.  You  are  comfortably  repos- 
ing in  your  bed,  while  the  Catholic  is  kneeling  to  his 
God.  You  do  not  fast  on  Friday,  on  which  day  oar 
Lord  was  crucified,  nor  do  penance  for  your  sins. 
And  as  to  conformity  to  the  world,  how  can  he  have 
anything  to  say  on  that  subject,  who  dresses  richly  and 
lives  like  men  of  the  world,  who  has  a  wife  and  the 
comforts  and  luxuries  of  a  family  about  him  ?  A  very  dif- 
ferent life  this  from  '  giving  up  all  for  Christ.'  O  what 
a  different  religion  this  is  from  that  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  the  confessors  and  martyrs  I  '  Charity  to 
such  a  religion  is  treason  to  Christ.'  "  The  Presbyterian 
replies,  "  These  are  uncommanded  austerities.     There 


WHAT   IS   IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN.  305 

is  no  warrant  for  them  in  the  Scriptures.  Christians 
are  left  in  these  respects  to  their  own  judgments  and 
consciences."  "  Point  me  if  you  can,"  answers  the 
Unitarian  in  his  turn,  "  to  a  single  passage  of  the  Bible, 
which  forbids  those  particular  amusements  you  con- 
demn. Christians  therefore  are  left  to  their  own  judg- 
ments and  consciences  in  these  particulars." 

It  is  a  curious  coincidence  that  the  same  objection  of 
free  living  should  have  been  made  to  Christ  by  the  Phar- 
isees of  his  days,  on  account  of  his  neglecting  to  employ 
the  common  means  of  securing  a  reputation  for  sanc- 
tity, a  sour  deportment  and  a  sanctimonious  abstinence 
from  the  innocent  festivities  of  life.  "  Behold  a  man 
gluttonous,  and  a  wine-bibber,  a  friend  of  publicans 
and  sinners  !" 

The  Presbyterian,  to  whom  we  have  alluded,  may  re- 
join :  "  I  am  sincere  in  my  belief,  that  all  Unitarians  are 
lost."  And  is  the  Catholic  any  less  to  be  believed,  when 
he  says  it  is  his  honest  opinion  that  all  Protestants  are 
lost  ?  "  No,  he  cannot  be  sincere,  because  he  sees  we 
live  a  Christian  life."  But  you  have  cut  yourself  off 
from  this  plea.  The  Catholic  may  turn  round  and  con- 
demn you  out  of  your  own  mouth.  He  may  take  up 
your  own  words  and  say  :  "  He  who  does  not  receive 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  intrinsic 
efficacy  of  the  sacraments  and  of  absolution,  does  not 
receive  the  Gospel,  and  is,  consequently,  no  Christian. 
It  follows  irresistibly,  to  my  mind,  that  he  who  rejects 
these  fundamental  truths,  however  respectable,  virtuous, 
and  apparently  devout,  he  may  be,  rejects  Christianity 
26* 


306  WHAT  IS  IT  TO  BE  A  CHRISTIAN. 

as  really,  though  not  under  precisely  the  same  circum- 
stances, yet  as  really,  as  any  Deist  ever  did.  And  that 
he  cannot,  with  propriety,  be  called  a  Christian,  in  any 
sense.  Their  preaching  is  to  be  avoided  as  blasphemy, 
their  publications  are  to  be  abhorred  as  pestiferous,  their 
ordinances  are  to  be  held  unworthy  of  regard  as  Chris- 
tian institutions ;  and  these  things  being  so,  you  ought 
to  regard  a  proposition  to  go  and  hear  them  preach,  or 
to  read  their  publications,  as  you  would  a  proposition  to 
hear  a  preacher  of  open  infidelity,  or  to  read  an  artful 
publication  of  a  follower  of  Herbert  or  Hume."  Your 
lips  are  sealed.  You  cannot  utter  one  word,  not  even 
bigotry  of  uncharitableness. 

You  openly  profess  to  excommunicate  and  cut  men 
off  from  the  name  and  privileges  of  Christians,  merely 
for  the  sake  of  opinion,  without  regard  to  moral  and  re- 
ligious charcter,  nay,  in  the  face  of  their  apparent  exist- 
ence. What  more  can  the  Catholic  do  ?  You  answer : 
"  In  countries  where  he  has  the  power,  he  burns  the 
bodies  and  confiscates  the  estates  of  those  who  dissent 
from  his  creed.  We  do  not  this."  We  reply  :  The  in- 
stitutions of  tJie  country  forbid  it.  You  go  as  far  as 
those  institutions  will  allow.  You  attempt  to  deprive 
dissenters  of  their  fair  name,  and  to  hold  them  up  to  the 
suspicion  and  odium  of  mankind,  you  attempt  by  legal 
means  to  drive  them  from  their  churches,  and  turn  them 
from  their  flocks  upon  the  world.  If  you  go  to  the  very 
limit  of  the  institutions  under  which  you  live,  is  there 
any  evidence  that  you  would  not  go  further  if  you  had 
the  power  ? 

But,  you  say,  the  Catholic  rejects  the  Bible  as  the 


WHAT   IS   IT  TO  BE   A   CHRISTIAN.  307 

Standard  of  faith,  and  refers  to  the  authority  of  Popes 
and  Councils.  Do  you  try  heresy  by  the  Bible  ?  No. 
You  try  it  by  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms 
of  the  Divines  at  Westminster ;  and  what  is  that,  but 
throwing  away  the  Bible  and  referring  to  the  authority 
of  Councils?  You  try  heresy  by  the  standard  of  the 
Council  of  Westminster,  and  they  by  standards  estab- 
lished by  Councils  a  few  centuries  earlier  ;  and  that  is 
all  the  difference  between  you.  The  Catholic  say§,  the 
Scriptures  are  an  unsufficient  rule  of  faith;  "they  are 
a  nose  of  wax,"  which  you  may  turn  just  as  you  please. 
The  Presbyterian  rebukes  him  for  his  irreverence.  But 
it  is  merely  for  saying,  in  coarse  language,  what  he  says 
in  language  a  little  more  refined.  For  what  do  we  now 
hear  from  all  quarters  of  the  Orthodox  world  !  "  The 
Scriptures  are  not  a  sufficient  test  of  soundness  in  the 
faith.  They  are  interpreted  so  many  ways,  that  it  is  in 
vain  to  think  of  having  a  pure  church  without  something 
more  definite  and  explicit." 

But  suppose  one  unacquainted  with  the  distinctions 
and  tactics  of  Christian  sects  were  to  land  on  our  shores 
and  chance  to  read  these  charges,  and  then  to  enter  a 
ohurch  where  God  is  worshipped  in  the  name  of  Christ 
in  Unity  and  instead  of  Trinity;  would  he  not  find  it 
difficult  to  reconcile  what  he  saw  and  heard  with  what 
he  read  ?  "  Can  it  be  possible,"  he  would  exclaim, 
"  that  these  people  reject  and  disbelieve  Christianity, 
and  still  build  churches  to  teach,  and  hear,  and  main- 
tain, and  propagate  it?  Especially  would  they  do  so,  if 
it  subjects  them  to  sacrifices  and  obloquy,  when  they 
might  enjoy  their  unbehef  unmolested,  as  many  others 


308  WHAT   iS   IT  TO  BK   A   CHRISTIAN. 

do,  and  profit  by  a  fair  reputation  for  Orthodoxy,  merely 
by  external  conformity  to  some  of  the  reigning  sects, 
and  saying  nothing  about  their  belief,  or  might  withdraw 
without  more  injury  to  their  rights  or  characters  from 
any  connection  with  Christianity  at  all?  It  is  impossi- 
ble ;  there  must  be  either  some  mistake  or  some  wilful 
misrepresentation." 

While  in  the  church  he  would  hear  God  worshipped 
in  the  name  and  through  the  mediation  of  Christ.  He 
would  hear  his  Gospel  read  and  expounded  as  a  divine 
revelation,  as  the  word  of  God,  and  containing  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  He  would  hear  the 
reality  of  his  miracles  acknowledged.  He  would  see 
him  commemorated  in  the  Supper  as  having  died  for 
man,  as  having  risen  from  the  dead,  and  as  now  living 
in  heaven.  An  unbeliever  rejects  all  this.  "  Can  men," 
he  would  exclaim,  "  believe,  and  not  believe,  at  the 
same  time  ?  These  men  certainly  do  not  reject,  they  re- 
ceive Christianity  ;  they  have  been  either  ignorantly,  or 
maliciously  slandered." 

He  wishes  to  examine  further  into  the  justice  of  this 
charge,  and  he  makes  inquiry  what  it  is  necessary  to 
believe,  in  order  to  be  a  Christian.  How  is  he  to  come 
at  this?  Why  plainly,  he  must  examine  the  arguments 
of  believers  with  unbelievers,  and  see  what  the  believer 
asserts  and  the  unbeliever  denies.  He  takes  up  a  bofk 
on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity,  perhaps  those  of  Paley, 
and  he  finds  the  great  proposition  which  his  whole  work 
was  intended  to  sustain  is  this  :  "  That  there  is  satisfac- 
tory evidence,  that  many  professing  to  be  original  wit- 
nesses of  the  Christian   miracles,  passed  their  lives   in 


WHAT  IS  IT  TO  BE    A  CHRISTIAN.  309 

labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings,  voluntarily  undergone  in 
attestation  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and 
solely  in  consequence  of  their  belief  in  those  accounts ; 
and  that  they  submitted  from  the  same  motives  to  new 
rules  of  conduct."  Or,  perhaps,  he  might  have  taken 
up  the  book  on  the  Evidences,  published  lately  in  this 
country  by  bishop  Mcllvaine,  a  believer  in  all  those  dis- 
puted points  we  have  been  examining.  The  great  ques- 
tion between  the  believer  and  the  unbeliever  is  summed 
up  by  him  in  the  following  proposition  :  "  Is  the  religion 
of  Jesus,  as  exhibited  in  the  New  Testament,  a  revela- 
tion from  God,  and  consequently  possessed  of  a  sove- 
reign right  to  universal  faith  and  obedience  ?" 

The  question  between  the  believer  and  the  unbeliever, 
according  to  both  these  defenders  of  the  faith,  is  between 
miracles  and  no  miracles,  revelation  and  no  revelation. 
He  wlio  believes  in  the  miracles,  and  the  reality  of  the 
revelation,  receives  Christianity,  for  it  is  the  object  of 
both  to  prove  the  truth  of  Christianity.  He  who  rejects 
the  miracles  and  the  revelation,  rejects  Christianity. 
That  class  of  men  to  which  I  referred  as  slandered,  re- 
ceive and  believe  the  miracles,  receive  and  believe  the 
revelation.  These  books  were  written  for  the  express 
purpose  of  converting  infidels  from  unbelief  to  the  be- 
lief of  what?  Precisely  what  Unitarians  now  believe,, 
the  Divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Gospel.  If  these 
men  have  stated  the  question  on  its  true  merits,  they 
may  convert  a  man  to  the  belief  of  Christianity,  and 
still,  according  to  our  learned  and  charitable  divine,  he 
is  an  infidel.  How  can  they  be  said,  with  the  least  re- 
gard to  truth  or  candor,  to  reject  Christianity  ?     With 


310 


WHAT  IS  IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN, 


what  truth,  or  fairness,  or  even  decency,  can  those  who 
receive  the  Christian  miracles  and  the  Gospel  as  a  reve- 
lation from  God,  be  classed  with  Herbert  and  Hume, 
who  denied  them  both  ?  It  requires  a  meekness  almost 
superhuman  to  bear  a  calumny  so  wanton  and  unjust. 

Well  and  what  do  the  Christian  miracles  prove  ?  Do 
they  prove  that  Christ  was  God,  or  a  Person  in  God  ? 
By  no  means.  What  then  do  they  prove  ?  They  prove 
that  the  doctrines  he  taught  were  from  God.  They  prove 
his  Divine  inspiration,  and  nothing  more.  They  do  not 
touch  his  metaphysical  nature  at  all.  The  revelation, 
when  confirmed  by  miracles,  is  equally  true  and  certain 
whatever  may  have  been  his  nature.  It  is  the  same  on 
every  hypothesis.  Hear  himself  on  this  subject.  "  But  I 
have  greater  witness  than  that  of  John ;  for  the  works 
which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  t!ie  same 
works  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me,"  not  that  I  am  this 
or  that  by  nature,  but  "  that  the  Father  hath  sent  me." 

The  impartial  examiner  of  the  evidences  and  sects 
of  Christianity,  after  this  explanation,  would  know  how 
to  appreciate  the  denunciation  he  had  read  of  the  wor- 
shippers of  one  God  in  the  name  of  Christ,  as  rejecting 
Christianity.  He  would  perceive  that  the  question  as  to 
the  miracles,  the  inspiration,  the  Divine  authority  of 
Christ  is  fundamental,  the  turning  point  between  belief 
and  unbelief.  But  the  question  concerning  Christ's  meta- 
physical rank  and  nature,  is  a  question  of  interpretation 
between  the  sects  of  Christianity.  And  the  origin  of 
this  denunciation  is  the  refusal  of  one  sect  to  adopt  the 
interpretation  of  another  sect,  which  they  attempt  to  dic- 
tate upon  that  common  revelation  which  all  receive,  and 


WHAT   IS   IT  TO  BE    A   CHRISTIAN.  811 

of  vvliicli  all  liave  an  equal  right  to  judge.  Tiie  worship- 
pers of  one  God  in  one  person,  are  denounced  as  unbe- 
lievers, as  rejecting  Christianity,  not  because  they  do 
actually  reject  the  Gospel  as  a  divine  revelation,  for  they 
receive  it  as  such,  but  because  they  reject  the  interpre- 
tation, which  others  choose  to  put  upon  it. 

If  we  compare  these  things  with  Scripture,  we  shall  find 
this  simplicity  of  belief  in  admirable  accordance  with  the 
confessions  of  faith  made  by  some  and  required  of  others 
of  the  early  Christians.  Who  was  the  first  convert  and 
member  of  the  Cliristian  Church  ?  It  was  Peter.  And 
what  was  his  confession  of  faith  ?  "  Simon  Peter  an- 
swered and  said,  Thou  art  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the 
living  God  ;"  or,  as  as  it  is  reported  in  Mark,  "  Thou 
art  the  Christ."  Jesus  answered,  "  Thou  art  Peter  ; 
and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church  ;  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  Thou  art 
my  first  convert,  the  corner  stone  of  the  new  edifice, 
never  to  be  destroyed.  That  "Christ,"  and  "  Son  of 
God,"  were  synonymous,  I  have  already  explained. 
They  were  both  Jewish  phrases,  significative  of  the  Di- 
vine commission  and  authority  of  their  expected  Mes- 
siah. This  was  the  only  confession  of  faith  required  of 
the  eunuch,  whom  Philip  converted  and  baptized :  "I 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  "  If 
thou,"  says  Paul  to  the  Romans,  "confess  with  thy 
mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that 
God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
These  considerations,  moreover,  explain  the  propriety 
of  the  formula  of  baptism,  as  an  epitome  or  abstract  of 
faith,  to  be  confessed  in  order  to  admission  into  the 


3  12  WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN. 

Christian  church.  "  Baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,"  into  a  profession  of  beHef  in  one  God,  the  Fa- 
ther Almighty,  and  "  of  the  Son,"  that  is,  as  we  have 
before  explained,  the  Divine  authority  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, and  "  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  into  a  belief  of  the 
miracles  by  which  his  mission  was  proved  and  estab- 
lished, which  are  often  in  Scripture  termed  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Such  is  the  simplicity  of  the  Christian's  Creed, 
for  which  the  disciples  were  called  Christians  first  at 
Antioch.  Christianity  is  the  same  now  that  it  was  then, 
and  the  same  Creed  which  was  sufficient  then  is  suffi- 
cient now.  We  have  arrived,  then,  at  the  answer  of  the 
first  part  of  our  present  inquiry,  what  is  it  necessary  for 
a  man  to  believe  in  order  to  be  a  Christian  ?  He  must 
believe  in  the  Divine  origin  of  Christ's  teaching  and 
miracles,  and  that  God  raised  him  from  the  dead. 

We  now  come  to  the  second  part  of  our  inquiry, 
what  is  it  necessary  for  a  man  to  practise  in  order  to  be 
a  Christian,  and  as  such  to  be  entitled  to  the  name, 
privileges,  and  hopes  of  a  Christian  ? 

This  part  of  our  subject,  I  confess,  is  surrounded  with 
more  difficulties  than  the  other,  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case.  Because  it  is  more  easy  to  judge  of  what  is 
true  or  what  is  revealed  in  the  language  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, than  to  judge  of  human  character  and  conduct. 
I  confess  that  it  is  impossible  to  judge  that  we  ourselves, 
much  less  any  other  persons  whose  hearts  we  do  not 
and  cannot  know,  are  true  Christians,  in  a  state  of  sal- 
vation and  acceptance  with  God.  No  one  in  this  life, 
(such  1  believe  to  be  the  design  of  God,)  can  arrive  at 
a  state  of  perfect  assurance.    The  most  that  we  can  do 


WHAT  IS  IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN.  313 

is  to  entertain  a  hope,  a  strong  confidence,  that  we  are 
in  that  state;  and  that  others,  of  whom  we  form  an 
opinion,  are  also.  On  what  is  this  hope  and  confidence 
founded,  and  on  what  ought  it  to  be  founded  ?  We  re- 
ply, upon  the  general  tenor  of  the  life  and  actions.  This 
evidence  is,  indeed,  imperfect,  because  we  cannot  see  the 
heart  and  the  motives ;  but  it  is  the  best,  and  only 
standard  we  can  adopt.  A  good  life,  a  Christian  prac- 
tice, is  the  only  evidence  that  man  can  give  or  man  can 
require  of  a  Christian  character.  Our  Saviour  has 
given  us  this  rule  of  judging :  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them."  We  have  already  seen  the  Creed  which  it 
is  necessary  for  a  man  to  adopt  in  order  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian. We  now  see  what  Creed  is  necessary  in  a  practi- 
cal sense  for  the  same  purpose,  such  a  belief  as  produces 
a  Christian  life.  When  the  most  simple  faith  is  accom- 
panied with  such  a  life,  we  cannot  withhold  the  name 
and  character  of  Christian.  And  where  this  practical 
character  does  not  exist,  no  matter  how  long  or  how 
mysterious  the  Creed,  the  seal  of  true  discipleship  is 
wanting,  and  the  name  and  hopes  of  a  Christian  ;ire  en- 
tertained in  vain. 

But  is  it  not  necessary  for  him  to  have  some  experi- 
ences to  relate,  to  be  able  to  tell  when,  how,  and  where, 
he  became  a  Christian  ?  Not  in  the  least.  If  his  life  be 
truly  Christian,  such  experiences  are  unnecessary.  They 
add  nothing  of  evidence.  If  the  life  be  not  Christian, 
they  are  certainly  deceptive.  Nothing  is  more  uncer- 
tain, equivocal,  and  suspicious,  as  a  test  of  character, 
than  mental  exercises.  They  come  and  go,  with  health 
or  disease,  with  excitement  or  tranquillity,  with  sympa- 
27 


314  WHAT  IS   IT  TO   BE   A    CHRISTIAN. 

thy  or  solitude.  But  a  patient  continuance  in  well  doing, 
a  calm  and  conscientious  discharge  of  duty,  accompa- 
nied by  that  faith  in  Christ  which  we  have  described, 
concerning  these  there  is  less  danger  of  mistake  ;  and, 
as  far  as  human  judgment  can  go,  they  leave  no  doubt. 
Such  is  the  endless  variety  of  temperament,  circum- 
stance, education,  that  no  invariable  rule  can  be  laid 
down  for  the  formation  of  the  Christian  character.  It 
is  sufficient  for  us  to  know  it  when  it  really  exists.  The 
true  follower  of  Christ  is  not  he  who  believes  him  to  be 
this  or  that  in  the  scale  of  being,  or  who  ranges  himself 
under  the  name  of  Paul  or  Apollos,  or  of  any  peculiar 
sect,  but  he  who  obeys  and  imitates  him.  Here,  then, 
is  the  true  criterion.  He  wlio  obeys  and  imitates  Christ, 
he  is  the  true  Christian.  Now  we  ask,  if  this  is  confined 
to  any  sect  or  denomination.  "  The  grace  of  God" 
"  hath  appeared  to  all  men,  teaching  us  to  live  soberly, 
righteously  and  godly  in  this  present  world."  Are  there 
not  those  who  live  thus  among  every  division  of  the  pro- 
fessed followers  of  Christ?  We  all  know  there  are. 
Why,  then,  will  not  all  sects  acknowledge  this?  I  la- 
ment to  say  it,  but  the  truth  must  be  spoken — it  is 
mutual  jealousy  of  each  other.  By  acknowledging  it, 
they  would  abase  the  pretensions  of  their  own  peculiari- 
ties from  essentials  into  non-essentials,  and  allow  the 
comparative  unimportance  of  those  points  on  which 
they  have  been  accustomed  to  lay  so  much  stress,  and 
on  which  their  very  party  was  raised  up  and  sustained. 
As  soon  as  this  is  allowed,  the  means  of  building  them- 
selves up  by  terror  and  anathema  are  destroyed.  As  soon 
as  it  is  allowed  that  any  one  can  be  saved  out  of  tiie 


WHAT   IS   IT  TO  BE   A   CHRISTIAN.  315 

pale  of  their  chiircli,  then  they  can  no  longer  exhort  men 
to  flee  to  it  as  the  only  ark  of  safety.  Men  are  tempted, 
then,  by  two  of  the  strongest  principles  in  their  nature, 
pride  of  opinion  and  self-interest,  to  make  their  peculiar 
dogmas  indispensable  to  salvation.  And  it  is  a  tempta- 
tion, alas !  which  too  few  are  able  to  resist.  It  is  so 
much  easier  to  play  upon  people's  prejudices  and  fears 
and  party  attachments,  than  to  enlighten  and  convince 
their  understandings,  that  it  requires  a  greater  love  of 
truth  and  more  entire  disinterestedness  than  even  the 
best  men  possess,  entirely  to  abstain  from  it. 

But  let  it  not  be  understood  that  because  I  would  al- 
low, and  have  others  allow  the  Christian  name,  privi- 
leges and  hopes  to  all  who  acknowledge  the  divine  au- 
thority of  Christ  and  at  the  same  time  exhibit  the  Chris- 
tian character,  that  I  would  be  or  have  others  to  be  in- 
different to  truth.  Let  that  be  sought  with  all  diligence. 
But  in  the  mean  time,  while  we  are  doing  this,  let  us  not 
denounce  and  anathematize  each  other.  Let  us  examine 
calmly  and  dispassionately  and  without  the  biases  of  ex- 
cited feeling  and  party  spirit.  What  chance  has  the 
mind  to  arrive  at  the  truth,  if  it  have  hanging  over  it  the 
pains  of  exclusion  and  denunciation  ?  What  freedom 
has  the  mind  to  investigate  the  truth,  if  it  have  already 
subscribed  to  a  Creed,  and  have  learned  to  consider  it 
as  something  to  defend  instead  of  something  to  examine  ? 
The  Bible  is  then  studied  not  to  discover  what  is  true 
or  what  it  teaches,  but  is  ransacked  to  find  texts  to  cor- 
roborate a  foregone  conclusion.  It  is  the  contest  for 
power  and  party,  not  the  great  and  irreconcilable  differ- 
ences of  creed  and  opinion,  which  givcs^asperity  and 


316  WHAT   IS  IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN. 

bitterness  to  sects  and  parties.  For  it  is  found  that  those 
are  most  hostile  whose  tenets  are  nearest  each  other, 
which  shows  that  it  is  rivalry  and  not  regard  for  impor- 
tant truth  which  is  at  the  bottom  of  their  strife  and  mu- 
tual denunciation.  Let  us  investigate  truth  with  zeal 
and  earnestness,  but  let  us  not  use  the  sacred  and  vene- 
rable name  of  Christian  as  an  instrumeot  of  party  power, 
by  giving  or  withholding  it,  to  build  up  or  put  down  a 
sect  whose  interests  we  wish  to  serve  or  ruin. 

The  identity  of  the  Christian  character  is  the  great 
bond  of  Christian  union.  Identity  of  sentiment  and  opin- 
ion can  never  be  attained.  Such  are  the  diversities  of 
external  circumstances,  of  education,  of  degrees  of  light 
and  knowledge,  that  the  same  truths  will  always  appear 
differently  to  different  minds.  And  so  long  as  these 
unavoidable  differences  are  embodied  in  Creeds,  and 
made  the  fences  and  ramparts  of  sects,  so  long  will  they 
keep  the  Christian  world  divided.  But  as  far  as  men 
are  true  Christians,  so  far  are  they  all  alike  in  moral 
qualities-:  and,  on  mutual  acquaintance,  will  love  and 
esteem  each  other.  All  true  Christians  venerate  in  others, 
above  everything  else  on  earth,  those  moral  qualities 
which  they  cultivate  in  themselves ;  integrity,  which 
may  be  relied  on  to  the  death,  and  with  which  you  feel 
yourself  forever  safe ;  candor,  which  will  make  proper 
allowances  for  your  weaknesses  and  your  prejudices, 
and  will  not  use  them  to  crush  and  ruin  you  ;  just  ap- 
preciation of  your  virtues,  without  envy  or  detraction, 
notwithstanding  diversities  of  sentiment  or  clashing  of 
interests  ;  delight  in  whatsoever  is  pure,  lovely  and  good. 
These  are  the.^u;  lities  of  a  Christian  ;  and  these  quaii- 


.WHAT   IS   IT  TO  BE   A   CHRISTIAN.  317 

ties  will  draw  the  heart  of  every  other  true  Christian  to 
their  possessor.  It  is  the  want  of  these  characteristics 
of  true  practical  religion,  of  real  Christianity,  and  not 
wide  disagreement  of  opinion,  which  is  the  occasion  of 
strife  and  war  among  the  followers  of  Christ.  They  ful- 
fil the  great  token  of  discipleship  which  Christ  has  left 
us  :  "  By  t-his  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples, 
if  ye  have  love  one  to  another."  They  are  to  love  each 
other,  not  because  they  belong  to  the  same  party,  for 
conspirators  may  have  that  ground  of  attachment,  but 
because  there  will  be  in  them  those  amiable  qualities  pre- 
eminently which  necessarily  form  a  common  bond  be- 
tween the  truly  good. 

The  Cliristian  character  has  fortunately  been  deline- 
ated in  the  New  Testament  too  plainly  to  be  mistaken 
by  any  candid  inquirer.  The  example  of  Christ  himself 
is  a  practical  commentary  on  his  religion  too  obvious  to 
be  misunderstood.  The  spirit  of  Christ  is  more  easily 
read  than  even  his  written  commandments.  And  "  if 
any  man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his," 
"  The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long  suffer- 
ing, gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance  ; 
against  such  there  is  no  law."  "  Giving  all  diligence, 
add  to  your  faith  virtue  ;  and  to  virtue  knowledge  ;  and 
to  knowledge  temperance  ;  and  to  temperance  patience  ; 
and  to  patience  godliness  ;  and  to  godliness  brotherly 
kindness;  and  to  brotherly  kindness  charity.  For  if 
these  things  be  in  you  and  abound,  they  make  you  that 
ye  shall  neither  be  barren  nor  unfruitful  in  the  know- 
ledge of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;"  "  for  if  ye  do  tliese 
things  ye  shall  never  fall.  For  so  an  entrance  shall  be 
27* 


318  WHAT  IS    IT  TO   BE   A  CHRISTIAN. 

ministered  unto  you  abundantly  into  the  everlasting 
kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  Such 
traits  of  character  as  these  can  never  be  mistaken.  To 
believe  in  the  divine  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  and  to 
lead  a  sober,  righteous,  and  godly  life,  these  constitute  a 
Christian,  and  ought  to  constitute  a  bond  of  union 
among  all  who  take  upon  them  his  sacred  and  venerable 
name.  Such  is  the  result  of  scriptural  investigation,  and 
it  is  corroborated  by  the  dictates  of  charity  and  experi- 
ence. For  the  moment  you  abandon  this  scriptural  and 
charitable  ground,  as  soon  as  you  demand  anything  else, 
you  shatter  the  Christian  church  into  a  thousand  frag- 
ments, and  make  Christianity,  instead  of  a  bond  of  union 
and  affection  among  mankind,  an  apology  for  hatred 
and  strife,  and  the  indulgence  of  the  very  worst  passions 
of  our  nature.  As  soon  as  you  assert  that  a  Christian  life, 
accompanied  by  an  acknowledgment  of  Christ's  divine 
authority,  is  not  sufficient,  and  that  it  requires  the  mys- 
terious leaven  of  some  peculiar  faith  to  sanctify  it  and 
make  it  acceptable  to  God,  then  every  petty  sect  in 
Christendom  will  insist  on  putting  in  their  own  peculiar 
dogmas  and  shutting  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  all 
who  will  not  subscribe  to  them.  The  moment  you  al- 
low any  one  to  say  that  a  good  life  is  not  good  and  ac- 
ceptable to  God  because  it  does  not  proceed  from  the 
right  principle,  the  right  motive,  the  right  faith,  then 
you  reverse  the  rule  of  our  Saviour  and  judge  the  fruit  by 
the  tree  instead  of  the  tree  by  the  fruit ;  you  must  allow 
each  man  to  define  that  sanctifying  principle  to  be  his 
own  peculiarities  of  faith,  and  thus  subject  the  best  of 
men  to  be  judged  and  condemned  and  persecuted  by 
the  worst. 


WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN.  319 

I  allow  that  the  sect  which  adopts  this  enlarged,  libe- 
ral, and  Christian  principle,  does  not  consult  best  for 
its  rapid  spread  and  spiritual  domination,  for  it  strikes 
at  the  very  root  of  sectarianism  itself.  It  forbids  the  use 
of  the  great  engine  of  party,  party  spirit.  It  forbids  the 
propagation  of  the  sentiments  of  a  party  for  the  sake  of 
its  growth.  It  forbids  that  spirit  of  exclusion  and  cen- 
soriousness  so  grateful  to  the  pride  of  the  human  heart; 
for  no  one  condemns  another  without  secretly  flattering 
himself.  It  can  grow  only  with  the  increase  of  light, 
candour,  and  charity,  with  a  love  of  the  truth  for  its  own 
sake,  and  not  for  the  advantages  which  may  be  made  of 
it,  the  benefits  of  social  combination  and  a  fair  public 
standing  and  reputation. 

Persecution  was  once  thought  a  religious  duty,  and 
a  backwardness  to  exercise  it  a  sure  symptom  of  luke- 
warmness  and  want  of  zeal  in  the  cause  of  Christ.  And 
civil  toleration  was  represented  as  a  certain  mark  of  in- 
difference to  truth,  and  the  readiest  way  to  destroy  all 
religion.  Time  and  experience  have  corrected  these 
mistakes,  and  proved  that  piety  flourishes  most  where 
there  is  the  least  external  restraint,  where  the  rights  of 
conscience  are  most  respected.  The  only  vestige  of  that 
spirit  which  now  remains  is  the  combination  to  with- 
hold the  Christian  name  and  privileges  from  those  who 
vary  from  the  popular  faith.  That,  however,  is  likewise 
in  a  fair  way  of  being  corrected.  The  real  unbelievers, 
the  real  rejecters  of  Christ  and  his  religion,  are  showing 
and  avowing  themselves  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  as  to  the  true  nature  of  unbelief,  and  of  the  readi- 
ness of  those  who  have  rejected  the  faith,  to  cast  off 


320  WHAT  IS   IT  TO  BE   A  CHRISTIAN. 

likewise  the  name  of  Christians.  That  the  worshippers 
of  one  God  in  one  Person  in  the  name  of  Christ,  do  not 
range  themselves  on  that  side,  ought  to  be  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  all  candid  minds  that  they  share  neither  in  their 
sentiments  nor  their  feelings. 

I  conclude,  by  exhorting  all  who  hear  me  to  examine 
themselves  whether  they  be  in  the  faith,  whether  they 
have  this  belief  in  Christ  and  his  revelation  strong 
within  them.  If  they  have  it,  whether  it  be  living  or 
dead,  whether  it  be  a  cold  speculation  of  the  brain,  or 
an  active  principle  pervading  the  whole  life.  I  would 
entreat  you  to  examine  whether  it  merely  fills  the  mind 
occasionally  with  fear  and  regret,  or  be  a  "  faith  which 
worketh  by  love,"  purifies  the  heart,  and  overcomes 
the  world. 


LECTURE    XIII 


HOW  DOES  A  MAN  BECOME   A   CHRISTIAN. 

TITUS   H.  11,  12. 

"For  the  grace  of  god  that  erimgeth  salvation  hath  ap- 
peared TO  ALL  MEN,  TEACHING  US,  THAT  DENYING  UNGODLINESS 
AND  WORLDLY  LUSTS,  WE  SHOULD  LIVE  SOBERLY,  RIGHTEOUSLY, 
AND  GODLY   IN  THIS  PRESENT  WORLD.'' 

The  subject  which  we  propose  to  consider  this  even- 
ing, is  comprehended  in  the  following  inquiry :  How 
does  a  man  become  a  Christian  ?  What  is  necessary  to 
be  done  for  a  man,  and  what  must  he  do  for  himself  in 
order  to  be  a  Christian  ? 

This,  you  perceive  to  be  an  inquiry  of  great  doctri- 
nal and  practical  importance.  It  touches  a  very  nice 
question  in  speculative  investigation,  the  limits  of  hu- 
man and  Divine  agency  in  the  process  of  salvation, 
spiritual  improvement,  the  formation  of  the  Christian 
character.  Its  practical  bearing  is  to  show  those,  who 
on  an  examination  of  themselves,  find  they  are  not  what 
they  would  be,  pr  what  their  own  convictions  assure 
them  they  ought  to  be,  where  the  fault  has  been,  whether 
in  themselves  or  somewhere  else,  and  how  this  fault 
may  be  corrected  in  future. 


S'22  HOW  DOES   A   MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

How  then,  we  inquire,  does  a  man  become  a  Chris- 
tian ?  Some  truths  are  set  in  a  stronger  hght  by  de- 
scribing their  opposites.  Perhaps  it  may  be  so  in  the 
present  case.  Let  us  then  ask  how  a  man  becomes  the 
opposite  of  a  Christian,  a  heathen  in  a  Christian  land. 
In  the  first  place,  he  is  suffered  to  grow  up  without 
Christian  knowledge.  He  is  not  taught  to  read  the  Bi- 
ble by  those  who  have  the  care  of  his  early  years ;  he 
does  not  form  the  habit  himself.  The  truths,  motives, 
and  principles  of  the  Gospel  do  not  operate  in  his  mind, 
or  on  his  conduct  and  life.  He  is  not  taught  to  pray, 
nor  does  he  cultivate  habits  of  devotion  himself,  and  is 
therefore  destitute  of  its  sanctifying  influence.  He 
never  reads  religious  or  devotional  books,  so  that  he 
never  forms  a  moral  and  devotional  taste.  He  scarcely 
ever  goes  to  church,  or  puts  himself  in  the  way  of  seri- 
ous reflection  or  sacred  instruction  ;  he  turns  his  back 
on  the  ordinances,  and  generally  on  the  means  of  re- 
ligion. He  has  no  idea  of  what  religion  and  devotion 
are,  nor  does  he  care  to  know.  Suppose  this,  and  you 
have  the  way  in  which  a  man  becomes  the  opposite  of  a 
Christian,  a  heathen  in  a  Christian  land.  He  may  be 
in  some  degree  moral,  and  so  were  heathens.  He  may, 
he  must  to  a  certain  extent,  catch  the  general  spirit,  and 
take  the  tone  of  the  society  in  which  he  lives  and  moves, 
which  has  been  elevated  by  Christianity.  But  he  is 
merely  passive  in  this,  and  would  have  floated  on  the 
level  of  any  society  in  which  his  lot  w^s  cast.  Christian 
or  Pagan. 

But  as  religious  faith,  principle  and  habit  are  the 
great  and  most  efficient  antidote  to  sin,  the  probability 


HOVy  DOES   A  MAN   BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN.  323 

is,  that  he  will  not  be  moral.  Without  this  preservative, 
the  probability  is,  that  he  will  fall  into  bad  company, 
and  into  many  temptations,  and  that  he  will  yield  to 
them.  His  natural  innocence  will  be  corrupted,  his 
good  and  upright  feelings  vitiated,  and  his  will,  original- 
ly free  to  good  as  well  as  evil,  will  become  gradually 
enslaved  to  evil  habit.  He  is  then  evidently  not  only 
not  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  far  from  it. 

Reverse  this  process,  and  you  have  the  way  in  which 
men  ordinarily  become  Christians.  They  at  an  early 
age,  with  the  very  dawning  of  their  minds,  receive 
Christian  knowledge.  They  are  taught  and  they  learn 
the  few  and  simple,  but  the  great,  spiritual,  all-pervad- 
ing, all-comprehending  truths  and  doctrines  of  the  Gos- 
pel. This  takes  place  not  by  a  single,  undivided  agen- 
cy, but  by  the  combined  agency  of  God,  of  Christ,  of 
parents  or  instructors,  and  of  the  mind  of  the  child  ;  of 
God,  who  gave  the  revelation  through  Christ;  of  Christ 
wjio  taught  it  to  men,  who  exemplified  it  in  his  con- 
duct, and  laid  down  his  life  to  prove  it  and  seal  it  with 
his  blood  ;  of  the  parent  or  instructor,  who  takes  these 
doctrines  from  the  written  records  of  Christ's  teaching, 
and  communicates  them  to  the  child  ;  of  the  child,  who 
applies  his  mind  to  understand  and  remember  them, 
and  practise  upon  them  when  called  as  life  advances, 
into  scenes  where  moral  choice  must  be  exercised.  He 
is  taught  to  pray.  By  this  exercise  all  the  truths  of  re- 
ligion, and  all  he  has  been  taught  of  God  cpme  to  bear 
directly  on  the  mind,  are  the  means  of  immediate  spir- 
itual influence.  God  comes  in  this  way  to  act  directly 
on  the  mind  for  its  spiritual   improvement,  not   by  vio- 


324  HOW   DOES   A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

latirjg  its  laws  and  working  a  miracle,  but  in  accordance 
with  its  laws,  by  operating  through  the  understanding 
and  the  will,  by  being  made  the  subject  of  thought,  and 
communion,  and  affection.  As  he  grows  older,  and  his 
understanding  is  developed,  he  comes  to  read  and  un- 
derstand the  Scriptures  himself,  he  listens  to  the  in- 
structions of  the  sanctuary  and  is  profited  by  them. 
He  forms  a  taste  for  religious  reading  and  devotional 
engagements,  and  when  his  character  is  sufficiently  ma- 
tured and  confirmed,  he  feels  constrained  by  his  affec- 
tionate regard  for  the  Saviour,  to  honor  his  memory  by 
celebrating  the  ordinance  of  his  institution.  Thus  he 
is  trained  up  when  he  is  young  in  the  way  he  should 
go,  and  when  he  is  older  he  will  not  depart  from  it. 
In  this  way,  I  believe  more  Christians  are  made  than 
in  any  other,  according  to  the  confession  of  all  religious 
teachers  of  every  denomination.  Even  those  who  put 
their  chief  reliance  on  periodical  excitements,  are  con- 
strained to  admit  that  most  of  the  subjects  of  perma- 
nent impressions  are  from  religious  families,  and  if  any 
are  brought  in  from  the  ignorant  and  vicious,  the  prob- 
ability of  their  steadfastness  is  in  direct  proportion  to 
their  previous  religious  knowledge  and  education,  and 
in  an  inverse  ratio  to  their  ignorance  and  their  vices. 
So  you  perceive  that  according  to  our  text,  the  great 
reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  teaching,  on  forming  instead 
of  changing,  the  character.  "  The  grace  of  God" 
"  hath  appeared  to  all  men,  teaching  us,  that  denying 
ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly, 
righteously,  and  godly." — When  the  character  is  once 
formed  and  matured  without  Christian  knowledge,  with- 


HOW   DOES    A  MAN  BFXOME   A  CHRISTIAN.  325 

out  Christian  principles,  without  Cfnistian  habits,  the 
probability  of  its  change  is,  I  confess,  but  small  under 
any  circumstances.  There  is  a  difficulty  then  on  the 
very  threshold,  to  secure  the  requisite  degree  of  atten- 
tion to  religious  truth.  '•  The  cares  of  this  world,  and 
the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  and  the  lusts  of  other 
things,"  if  nothing  worse,  have  come  in  and  occupied 
the  mind  so  exclusively,  that  divine  things  either  are 
not  attended  to  at  all,  or  so  hastily  and  superficially  as 
to  make  no  lasting  impression.  The  chief  hope  then 
is  from  another  source.  The  teacher  then  to  be  relied 
on,  is  tiie  course  of  Divine  Providence,  and  the  expe- 
rience of  life.  Affliction  then  may  speak  with  a  voice 
sufficiently  impressive,  to  be  heard  to  the  inmost  depths 
of  the  soul.  The  loss  of  friends  may  draw  the  heart  to 
him,  who  came  to  comfort  those  who  mourn.  The  ar- 
row of  misfortune  may  pierce  so  deeply,  as  to  send  the 
sufferer  to  the  Great  Physician  of  souls.  The  unsatis- 
factoriness  of  all  earthly  things  may  bring  the  inquirer 
for  real  good,  to  the  fountain  of  living  waters  springing 
up  into  everlasting  life.  The  natural  retributions  of 
sin,  the  nausea,  sorrow  and  disgust,  which  must  sooner 
or  later  overtake  the  deluded  devotee  of  pleasure,  may 
lead  him  to  "  ahhor"  himself,  "and  repent  in  dust  and 
ashes."  The  mad  outcast  of  profligacy  and  vice,  may 
at  last  come  to  his  right  mind,  and  be  found  sitting  at 
the  feet  of  Jesus.  Such,  before  they  beconje  true 
Christians,  must  become  as  little  children.  They  must 
go  over  this  same  process  of  learning  of  our  common 
Master,  must  form  themselves  to  the  practice  of  every 
duty  they  have  hitherto  neglected.  They  must  acquire 
28 


326  HOW  DOES   A   MAN  BECOME   A  CHRISTIAN. 

by  study,  endeavor  and  experience,  Christian  knowl- 
edge, Christian  principles,  Christian  habits,  and  then 
they  will  be  Christians  indeed. 

But  it  will  be  objected  to  this,  I  know,  by  a  certain 
class  of  religionists,  that  the  process  of  becoming  a 
Christian  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  We  an- 
swer, this  is  granted.  So  is  the  process  by  which  the 
seed  that  is  sown  in  the  earth  becomes  a  harvest,  the 
work  of  God's  Spirit.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  the  power 
of  God  in  action.  The  Spirit,  agency,  efficiency,  en- 
ergy of  God,  is  the  only  power  which  connects  any 
cause  with  its  effect,  and  a  moral  as  much  as  a  physi- 
cal cause  with  its  effect.  There  is  no  power  in  the 
seed  of  itself  to  spring  up  and  bear  fruit,  without  the 
immediate  agency  of  God.  So  there  is  no  power  in 
any  idea  or  truth,  when  conveyed  to  the  mind  of  man, 
to  give  him  any  knowledge  or  excite  him  to  any  good 
affection  or  holy  action  without  the  immediate  agency 
of  God.  But  the  Spirit  works  through  means  in  both 
cases,  and  not  without  them.  And  those  means  man 
tnay  use  or  not  just  as  he  chooses.  Man  must  plant 
the  seed  in  the  earth  and  cultivate  it,  or  God  will  give 
him  no  harvest.  So  God  will  not  work  in  his  mind  if 
he  leave  it  a  mere  blank,  if  he  sow  no  seed  and  use  no 
means  through  which  and  in  which  the  Spirit  may  op- 
erate. He  must  read  God's  word,  or  pray,  or  hear  re- 
ligious discourse,  or  meditate  on  his  works  or  provi- 
dence, or  there  will  be  no  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  his 
mind,  any  more  than  there  will  be  in  the  field  where  no 
seed  is  sown. 

But  such  religionists  will  rejoin,  there  must  be  some 


HOW  DOES   A  MAN  BECOME   A  CHRISTIAN."  327 

distinguishing,  special  operations  of  God's  Spirit  or 
power,  in  all  those  cases  where  the  means  of  religion 
are  effectual.  We  answer,  that  this  assertion  is  a'merc 
assumption,  entirely  destitute  of  any  proof  or  any  evi- 
dence whatever.  It  is  only  a  necessary  part  of  a  base- 
less, artificial  system  of  divinity,  dishonorable  alike  to 
God  and  man.  Consequences  follow  immediately  from 
it  most  derogatory  from  the  moral  character  and  gov- 
ernment of  God.  It  will  follow  from  it  that  of  two 
persons  equally  sincere  and  earnest  in  the  use  of  means, 
and  equally  deserving  the  aid  of  the  Spirit,  which  alone 
makes  those  means  effectual,  it  is  withheld  from  one 
and  bestowed  on  the  other  by  arbitrary  will,  caprice, 
partiality,  favoritism  ;  so  one  is  lost,  not  through  his 
own  fault,  for  he  did  all  he  could,  and  the  other  is 
saved,  not  because  he  was  any  more  meritorious.  To 
evade  this,  is  it  said  that  though  special,  it  is  always 
bestowed  on  the  sincere  ?  Then  it  is  always  bestowed 
according  to  a  certain  rule.  It  is  always  bestowed  un- 
der certain  circumstances  ;  then  it  is  no  longer  special 
and  distinguishing.  Every  one  is  sure  of  receiving  the 
effectual  aid  of  the  Spirit  who  is  sincere  ;  or  in  other 
words,  the  effectual  aid  of  the  Spirit  always  accom- 
panies the  means  of  religion  when  sincerely  used. 

But  it  will  not  do,  it  may  be  said,  to  tell  people  so. 
They  will  not  feel  sufficiently  their  dependence.  They 
will  form  presumptuous  ideas  of  the  goodness  of  God, 
and  his  readiness  to  receive  them  at  any  time.  They 
will  trust  too  much  to  their  own  power  of  using  the 
means  of  religion  effectually  at  any  hour,  and  so  put  it 
off.     I  answer,  that  I  would  tell  the  truth  at  any  rate, 


328  HOW  DOES  A  MAN  BECOME   A  CHRISTIAN. 

and  let  consequences  take  care  of  themselves.  I  would 
honestly  tell  them  the  truth  on  this  and  every  other  sub- 
ject, as  I  went  along,  and  rely  on  one  truth  to  correct 
what,  to  my  short  sighted  vision,  seemed  calculated  to 
produce  an  injurious  effect  in  another.  I  would  tell  them 
that  the  probability  that  they  would  use  the  means  of 
religion  at  all,  is  growing  less  and  less  every  moment, 
as  the  time  in  which  it  must  be  done  is  growing  shorter 
and  bad  habits  are  continually  strengthening,  and  there- 
fore the  probability  of  sincerity,  the  grand  requisite,  is 
diminishing  every  day. 

We  cannot  certainly  be  more  dependent  on  God  for 
the  means  of  sustaining  spiritual  life,  and  their  efficacy 
for  that  purpose,  than  we  are  for  the  means  of  sustain- 
ing animal  life,  and  their  efficacy  for  that  purpose.  And 
yet  no  one  thinks  of  preaching  that  every  act  of  the 
Deity  by  which  this  is  extended  to  us  is  a  special  act,  in 
order  to  keep  up  men's  sense  of  dependence  upon  God 
for  the  food  which  sustains  life,  and  for  the  power  which 
it  momentarily  receives  from  God  to  effect  that  purpose. 
I  see  not  therefore,  why  we  should  make  a  distinction 
between  these  two  cases,  when  there  is  no  difference. 
This  preaching  and  shaping  doctrines  merely  to  pro- 
duce an  effect,  I  cannot  approve.  It  savours  more  of 
human  cunning  and  pious  fraud,  than  of  godly  honesty 
and  sincerity.  I  shall  say  something  on  this  head  in  the 
present  Lecture  before  I  close. 

There  is  a  sense,  and  an  important  sense,  in  which  a 
man's  becoming  a  Christian  is  the  effect  of  the  opera- 
tion, the  miraculous  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
God  by  his  Spirit,  by  a  violation  of  the  common  laws  of 


HOVY   DOES   A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN.  329 

nature,  revealed  the  Gospel  to  Jesus  and  his  apostles. 
God  gave  him  the  Spirit  without  measure.  God  gave 
him  all  his  doctrines,  requiring  superhuman  wisdom  and 
knowledge.  "  My  doctrine,"  said  he,  "  is  not  mine, 
but  his  that  sent  me."  "  I  have  given  unto  them  the 
words  which  thou  gavest  me."  These  doctrines  were 
proved  to  be  from  God  by  the  miraculous  operation  of 
the  Spirit.  "  The  works  which  the  Father  hath  given 
me  to  finish,  the  same  works  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of 
me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent  me."  And  this  same  mi- 
raculous power  accompanied  the  apostles  during  their 
ministry,  which  established  Christianity  in  the  world. 
"  He  that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall  he 
do  also,  and  greater  works  shall  he  do."  Without  this 
miraculous  communication  of  knowledge  and  wisdom, 
which  constitutes  the  Gospel,  it  plainly  could  never 
have  existed  on  earth,  and  without  the  external  mira- 
cles, particularly  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead,  it 
could  never  have  been  authenticated  and  established  as 
a  divine  revelation.  That  Gospel  was  committed  to 
writing,  and  has  come  down  to  us  just  as  it  then  ex- 
isted. Time  has  made  no  change  in  it,  though  the  gene- 
rations of  men  have  passed  away.  For  though  "  all  flesh 
is  as  grass,  and  all  the  glory  of  man  as  the  flower  of 
grass  ;  the  grass  withereth,  and  the  flower  thereof  falleth 
away  :  but  the  word  of  the  Lord  endureth  forever. 
And  this  is  the  word  which  by  the  Gospel  is  preached 
unto  you."  Whoever  then  now  learns  of  the  Gospel, 
and  is  convinced  of  its  truth  by  its  superhuman  wisdom, 
and  the  miracles  which  accompanied  it,  is  as  really 
taught  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  those  who  listened  to  it 
28* 


330  HOW  DDLS   A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

from  the  lips  of  him  to  whom  it  was  first  communicated. 
And  tliose  who  are  convinced  by  the  evidence  we  have 
of  the  miracles,  owe  their  faith  to  the  Spirit  of  God. 

And  there  is  a  still  further  point  of  resemblance.  It 
does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  influence  exerted 
immediately  on  the  minds  of  the  first  converts  to  make 
them  believe  and  obey  the  Gospel.  They  appear  to 
have  been  left  to  the  exercise  of  their  natural  powers. 
We  have  no  evidence  of  any  miraculous  influence  on 
their  minds  to  cause  them  to  believe,  or  before  they  be- 
lieved. The  miracles  were  wrought  to  give  the  Gospel 
external  evidence,,  external  I  mean  to  the  minds  of  those 
to  whom  it  was  preached.  The  miracles  were  wrought 
to  give  them  evidence  ;  but  none,  of  which  we  have 
any  account,  to  predispose  their  minds  to  receive  it,  or 
to  act  according  to  their  convictions  when  it  was  re- 
ceived. This  could  not  have  been  done,  without  in- 
fringing upon  their  moral  freedom  and  accountability. 
And  this  brings  to  view  a  very  important  consideration. 
They  welcomed  or  resisted  their  convictions  according 
to  their  previous  moral  condition;  and  they  obeyed  or 
disobeyed  their  convictions,  in  a  great  measure,  accord- 
ing to  their  accustomed  habits  of  action — a  principle  of 
universal  application.  It  is  as  true  now  as  it  was  in  the 
days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  The  bad  effects  of  sin 
extend  not  only  to  the  aflfections  and  the  will,  to  de- 
prave the  affections  and  enslave  the  will,  but  they  like- 
wise embarrass  the  understanding  in  the  investigation  of 
truth,  and  prompt  the  mind  to  resist  instead  of  seeking 
conviction.  A  bad  man  was  less  likely  to  believe  on 
Christ  than  a  good  man,  because  he  would  feel  himself 


HOW  DOES   A  MAN   BECOiME  A   CHRISTIAN.  331 

interested  in  parrying  the  force  of  the  evidence,  in  not. 
giving  it  a  fair  and  full  examination.  "  If  any  man  will 
do  his  will  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be 
of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself."  "For  every 
one  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light,  neither  cometh  to 
the  light,  lest  his  deeds  should  be  reproved." 

Those  then,  who  by  a  life  of  probity  and  honesty  had 
prepared  themselves  to  receive  and  believe  in  Christ, 
were  entitled  to  that  advantage  in  respect  to  their  con- 
victions, in  the  operations  of  their  understandings  even, 
which  they  possessed  over  the  vicious  and  unprincipled  ; 
who  by  their  wickedness  had  made  themselves  enemies 
of  the  light,  and  opposed  to  the  acknowledgment  of  a 
moral  Reformer.  Conversion  by  miraculous  impulse, 
would  destroy  this  just  distinction,  as  well  as  preclude 
entirely  whatever  moral  character  there  might  be  in  em- 
bracing truth.  Any  interference  afterward  acting  up- 
on the  mind,  to  determine  its  choice  to  obey  its  convic- 
tions, would  certainly  destroy  free  agency  and  all  merit. 

The  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  power  of  God,  was  exerted 
to  impart  the  revelation,  and  to  give  sufficient  evidence 
of  it ;  but  never,  as  far  as  we  are  taught,  was  it  exerted 
to  make  this  or  that  man  believe  and  receive  it,  or  to 
bias  his  will  to  act  according  to  his  belief  or  convictiqus 
when  he  had  received  it.  The  human  mind  was  left  to 
its  own  natural  laws  and  it^  own  freedom  of  choice. 
Otherwise  the  same  benevolence  which  prompted  God 
to  send  the  Gospel,  and  Christ  to  teach  it  with  toil,  suf- 
fering and  death,  would  have  prompted  to  cause  all 
men  instead  of  a  few,  to  believe  on  and  obey  him.  The 
Gospel  itself  is  a  miraculous  agency  upon  the  minds  of 


332  HOW  DOES   A  MAN  BECOME  A   CHRISTIAN. 

men.  For  it  was  given  by  miracle,  and  proved  by  mira- 
cles. Wherever  it  was  preached,  then  as  now,  it  con- 
tained all  that  influence  upon  the  mind  of  man  which 
God  saw  fit  to  address  to  it.  More  was  not  consistent 
with  that  freedom  of  moral  action  which  is  necessary  to 
good  or  ill  desert,  or  the  formation  of  character.  It  con- 
tains just  that  degree  and  amount  of  instruction,  per- 
suasion, motive,  inducement,  which  infinite  wisdom  saw 
was  compatible  with  human  liberty  and  moral  probation- 
To  say  then,  that  it  required  another  act  of  the  Spirit  or 
power  of  God  to  prepare  the  heart  for  its  effectual  re- 
ception, or  to  give  it  light  and  force  in  the  mind,  is  to 
assert  that  the  former  act  of  the  Spirit  was  imperfect 
and  insufficient  for  the  very  purpose  for  which  it  was 
exerted,  is  to  assert  that  God's  revelation  is  so  defective 
for  its  purpose,  that  it  requires  another  revelation  to  ex- 
plain and  give  it  efficacy. 

My  estimate  of  the  revelation  of  Christ  is  not  so  low 
as  this.  I  do  not  think  so  meanly  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures. 1  believe  that  the  religion  of  Christ  is  the  most 
powerful  agency  and  influence  which  God  exerts  upon 
the  soul  of  man.  I  believe  that  it  comes  up  to  the  very 
point  "where  more  light  and  more  power  would  destroy 
the  balance  of  the  choice,  and  overwhelm  the  freedom 
of  the  will.  Much  more  would  a  direct,  irresistible  power 
exerted  immediately  on  the  mind  to  produce  conviction 
and  obedience,  have  that  effect.  Accordingly  we  find, 
that  when  miracles  ceased  with  the  age  of  the  apostles, 
in  the  Christian  Church,  reliance  was  placed  on  instruc- 
tion to  make  Christians.  It  was  supposed  by  those  who 
lived  nearest  to  the  age  of  miracles,  that  no  further  vio- 


HOW  DOES  A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN.      333 

lation  of  the  laws  of  nature  was  to  be  expected.  The 
Christian  religion  was  left  to  be  propagated  and  per- 
petuated by  the  operation  of  the  comnion  laws  of  hu- 
man agency  and  the  human  mind.  They  therefore  in- 
stituted a  course  of  systematic  instruction  for  the  young, 
beginning  in  their  tenderest  years  to  instil  into  them  the 
simplest  principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  And  this 
system  of  instruction  went  upon  the  very  rational  sup- 
position, that  the  Gospel  was  competent  to  that  purpose 
for  which  it  was  given  by  God,  to  make  men  wise  to 
salvation,  and  with  his  blessing  would  be  efficient  for  the 
accomplishment  of  that  end,  just  as  any  other  means 
which  he  has  in  his  wisdom  instituted,  is  for  any  other 
purpose.  And  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  they 
were  not  disappointed,  for  that  was  the  age  of  saints, 
and  martyrs,  and  confessors. 

Moses,  according  to  the  wisdom  given  to  him,  had 
left  instructions  ages  before,  on  this  point.  *'  And  these 
wqrds  which  I  command  thee  this  day  shall  be  in  thine 
heart.  And  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy 
children."  And  this  system  of  instruction  went  upon  the 
supposition  that  children  come  into  the  world  free  to 
choose  good  or  evil,  and  immediately  when  capable  of 
moral  action,  begin  to  form  characters  either  good  or 
bad  by  their  good  or  bad  actions,  which  will  have  a 
bearing  on  their  whole  future  existence.  As  the  mind 
always  acts  with  reference  to  the  principles  there  are  in 
it,  this  system  took  care  that  the  first  principles  which, 
entered  it  should  be  Christian  principles.  This  continued 
the  practice  of  the  church  for  many  ages,  till  new  doc- 
trines were  introduced  entirely  subversive  of  the  theory 


334  HOW  DOES   A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

upon  which  this  system  of  instruction  was  founded. 
St.  Augustine,  in  the  fifth  century,  broached  the  doc- 
trine that  man  is  by  nature  totally  depraved  ;  and 
incapable  of  any  religious  action,  till  his  nature  is 
changed.  This  of  course  rendered  the  theory  of  be- 
ing made  Christians  by  instruction  absurd  and  pce- 
posterous.  Because,  according  to  that  supposition,  they 
are  made  Christians,  not  by  the  spiritual  agency  of  God 
through  the  Gospel  in  which  others  and  they  themselves 
might  be  instrumental,  but  by  direct,  arbitrary  action  of 
God  upon  the  soul,  which  none  but  he  could  hasten  or 
retard.  It  is  certainly  a  waste  of  time  and  effort  to  im- 
part religious  instruction  to  a  being  incapable  of  religion. 
It  is  certainly  a  mockery  to  lay  motive  and  inducement 
before  a  being  who  has  no  power  to  obey  them.  There 
is  certainly  no  inducement  to  sow  seed  which  has  no 
vitality  in  it,  or  in  a  soil  which  has  no  power  to  nourish 
and  fructify  it. 

This  speculation  of  St.  Augustine  seems  never,  how- 
ever, to  have  been  carried  out  in  practice,  nor  to  have 
influenced  the  usages  of  the  Catholic  church.  But  since 
its  revival  by  Calvin  at  the  Reformation,  it  has  entered 
more  largely  into  both  speculative  and  practical  theolo- 
gy. And  it  now  threatens,  where  the  peculiar  tenets  of 
that  Reformer  prevail,  entirely  to  revolutionize  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Christian  religion.  Once  admit  the 
shocking  hypothesis  that  man  is  born  under  the  wrath 
and  curse  of  God,  incapable  of  willing  or  doing  any- 
thing good  or  pleasing  to  God,  is  under  the  necessity  of 
sinning  in  every  act,  then  there  must  be  a  change 
wrought  in  him  by  the  arbitrary,  irresistible  power  of 


HOW  DOES   A  MAN  BECOME  A   CHRISTIAN.  335 

God,  before  he  becomes  a  moral  agent  even,  so  far  as 
religion  is  concerned.  As  he  cannot  advance  that 
change,  so  he  cannot  retard  it.  It  is  as  entirely  useless, 
according  to  this  theory,  to  instil  into  the  mind  the  prin- 
ciples and  truths  of  the  Gospel,  as  to  sow  seed  in  a 
desert  of  sand.  The  soul  must  sin  at  any  rate,  and  it  is 
of  little  consequence  wiiether  its  sins  are  greater  or  less, 
fewer  or  more,  as  it  cannot  be  more  than  totally  de- 
praved, or  merit  more  than  God's  wrath,  curse,  and 
damnation.  Nay,  it  is  sometimes  asserted,  that  the  more 
like  Christians  people  are  educated,  the  more  excellent 
their  characters,  provided  this  change  has  not  been 
wrought,  the  further  they  are  from  the  kingdom  of  God  ; 
and  the  greater  the  sinner,  the  more  likely  to  be  made  a 
saint.  All  we  can  say  of  such  a  doctrine  as  this,  is,  that 
it  is  a  worthy  part  and  parcel  of  a  system  of  religion, 
which  begins  with  calumniating  the  character  of  the  De- 
ity, and  ends  by  contradicting  every  law  and  phenome- 
non of  the   human  mind. 

But,  as  as  we  before  said,  wherever  these  doctrines 
prevail,  the  tendency  is  to  conform  to  them  the  whole 
administration  of  Christianity.  Although  in  theory  it  is 
maintained  that  none  but  God  can  change  the  heart, 
and  nothing  that  man  can  do  will  have  any  influence  to 
induce  him  to  do  it,  still  means  are  adopted,  which  ap- 
parently have  for  their  object  to  induce  him  to  produce 
that  change.  Means  are  adopted  which  certainly,  if 
they  have  no  influence  with  God  according  to  this  sysr 
tern,  to  induce  him  to  chatige  the  hearts  of  the  subjects  of 
these  means,  are  calculated  and  are  apparently  intended 
to  bring  on  a  crisis  in  their  state  of  feeling,  wiiich  makes 


336  HOW   DOES   A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

them  imagine  that  their  hearts  are  changed.  That  thou- 
sands, by  their  endeavors  afterward  to  act  accordingly, 
may  form  a  Christian  character,  we  do  not  doubt.  But 
there  can  come  no  good  on  the  whole,  from  mistake  and 
deception  ;  and  where  there  is  one  person  benefited  by 
such  measures,  tixere  are  probably  many  who  suffer  ir- 
reparable injury. 

But  here,  perhaps,  I  may  be  asked,  if  I  wish  to  be 
understood  to  speak  in  disparagement  of  religious  ex- 
citements, and  what  are  technically  called,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  day,  Revivals  of  religion  ?  I  answer  that  I 
would  speak  of  them  with  caution  and  discrimination. 
Where  I  saw  a  minister  who  had  not  labored  up  to  the 
limit  of  his  strength,  and  time,  and  talents,  becoming 
more  earnest  and  assiduous  in  his  duties,  studying  more, 
and  discharging  his  public  functions  with  more  force 
and  impressiveness : — if  I  should  see  a  congregation, 
which  had  been  cold  and  negligent,  waking  up  to  a  co- 
operation with  their  minister,  more  constant  at  church, 
more  devout  while  there,  becoming  alive  to  the  impor- 
tance and  practice  of  family  religion,  who  should  dedi- 
cate their  children  to  God,  and  then  be  careful  to  in- 
struct them,  or  have  them  instructed  in  the  great  truths 
and  principles  of  Christianity  ; — if  I  should  see  the  bonds 
of  family  affection  strengthening,  and  a  greater  degree 
of  interest  and  regard  in  each  member  of  the  society 
for  every  other  ; — if,  in  this  state  of  things,  I  should  see 
more  and  more  from  time  to  time,  prompted  by  the 
strength  and  sincerity  of  their  religious  feelings  and  their 
affection  toward  the  Saviour,  to  surround  the  table  of 
his  dying  love  ; — if  I  should  see  all  this  take  place  with- 


I 


HOW  DOES  A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN.  337 

out  officious  intermeddling  with  each  other's  concerns, 
without  affected  and  artificial  solemnity,  without  harsh 
and  censorious  judgments  of  each  other,  this  I  should 
welcome  as  a  revival  of  religion  indeed.  I  should  hail  it 
as  "  that  wisdom  that  is  from  above,  which  is  first  pure, 
then  peaceable,  gentle,  and  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of 
mercy  and  good  fruits,  without  partiality  and  without 
hypocrisy."  For  such  a  revival  as  this,  I  would  spend 
and  be  spent.  For  this  I  would  labor  and  pray,  so  long 
as  God  permitted  me  to  be  an  ambassador  of  Christ. 

So  far  as  a  revival  of  religion  bore  these  marks  and 
corresponded  to  this  description,  I  should  approve  and 
rejoice  in  it.  But  were  I  to  hear  of  a  religious  excite- 
ment in  any  place  ;  in  order  to  form  my  judgment  of  it, 
I  should  first  inquire  whether  the  pastor  had  adopted 
those  measures  which  are  usually  resorted  to  to  produce 
an  excitement,  from  his  own  judgment,  or  whether  he 
were  driven  into  them  by  the  over-persuasion  of  his 
neighboring  brethren,  or  their  threats  of  denunciation  ; 
or  brought  into  it  to  gratify  some  of  the  restless,  but 
weak  spirits  of  his  own  society.  I  should  inquire 
whether  it  were  or  were  not,  an  expedient  resorted  to  in 
order  to  support  a  tottering  church,  a  tottering  man,  or 
a  tottering  cause.  I  should  endeavor  to  ascertain  whether 
or  not  it  were  employed  in  order  to  sustain,  by  the  sup- 
posed divine  approbation  which  it  might  be  thought  to 
involve,  the  claims  of  a  declining  faith,  which  can  no 
longer  be  defended  by  argument.  I  should  ask,  if  among 
the  .foreign  assistance  usually  called  in  on  such  occa- 
sions, those  who  figured  most  conspicuously  were  men 
in  the  places  from  which  they  came,  noted  for  their  in- 
29 


338  HOW  DOES   A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

tegrity,  their  sound  sense,  and  the  purity  of  their  morals  ; 
or  whether  they  were  the  vain,  the  conceited,  and  the 
equivocal  of  fame.  I  should  wish  to  be  informed  whether 
the  measures  adopted  met  the  approbation  of  the  wisest 
heads  and  the  soundest  hearts  of  the  congregation,  or 
only  of  the  enthusiastic,  the  volatile,  and  unstable,  and 
were  merely  tolerated  by  the  wise,  for  fear  of  opposing 
what  was  in  some  way  connected  with  the  cause  of  re- 
ligion. I  should  inquire,  moreover,  what  doctrines  had 
been  preached.  If  I  found  among  them,  as  I  probably 
should,  if  the  excitement  had  been  great,  the  Divine 
Sovereignty  in  the  persons,  modes,  and  times  of  conver- 
sion ;  and  that  revivals  are  the  effect  of  the  extraordi- 
nary operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  the  minds  of 
men  ;  I  should  then  question  how  it  could  be  reconciled 
with  plain  honesty  for  those  to  preach  these  doctrines, 
who  were  conscious  of  bringing  about  these  excitements 
by  human  machinery.  How  can  they  say  that  a  revival 
is  the  result  of  the  extraordinary  operation  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  who  have  in  council  determined  beforehand  to 
bring  that  revival  to  pass  by  preconcerted  means  ?  I 
should  look  upon  this  accidental  coincidence  of  the  de- 
termination of  God  to  pour  out  his  Spirit  in  a  certain 
place,  with  a  determination  of  a  certain  set  of  men  to 
have  a  revival  there,  as  being  something  more  than  sus- 
picious. The  human  agents  in  these  excitements,  in  or- 
der to  sustain  their  claim  to  be  the  immediate  work  of 
God  must  maintain,  in  those  cases  in  which  conversion 
took  place  in  a  preconcerted  revival,  either  that  thei  ex- 
traordinary operations  of  the  Spirit  were  exercised  in 
consequence  of  the  use  of  the  means,  or  that  they  them- 


HOW  DOES  A  MAN  BECOME   A  CHRISTIAN,  339 

selves  were  prompted  by  the  special  influences  of  the 
Spirit  to  use  those  means.  If  they  say  in  consequence 
of  the  use  of  means,  their  use  of  means  controlled  and 
prescribed  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  to  a  certain  time 
and  a  certain  place.  If  so,  what  becomes  of  the  Divine 
Sovereignty  ?  If  they  say  that  the  revival  is  the  effect  of 
the  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  sense  of  prompt- 
ing them  to  undertake  it,  then  they  share  the  pretension 
to  inspiration  with  a  class  of  persons  in  modern  times, 
of  whose  fellowship  we  should  not  suppose  them  to  be 
at  all  ambitious.  If  they  mean  that  it  is  the  result  of  the  ; 
blessing  of  God,  which  always  accompanies  the  sincere 
employment  of  the  means  which  he  has  appointed,  then 
let  them  say  so.  If  they  believe  k  is  common  and  inva- 
riable, let  them  not  say  it  is  special.  Let  them  not  claim 
Divine  sanctions  for  their  doctrines  from  special  opera- 
tions of  the  Spirit,  which  they  know  to  be  common. 

But  I  should  perhaps  be  told,  that  there  was  great 
solemnity,  great  distress  of  mind,  and  perhaps  convul- 
sions of  body.  I  should  proceed  to  inquire  further, 
what  doctrines  were  preached  ?  If  they  were  total  de- 
pravity, which  means  man's  being  created  under  God's 
wrath  and  curse,  and  his  being  doomed  inevitably  to 
eternal  damnation,  without  the  interposition  of  almighty 
power,  unable  to  do  the  least  thing  to  secure  his  salva- 
tion ;  and  in  connection  with  these  the  Divine  Sove- 
reignty, which  means  arbitrary  selection  of  the  indi- 
viduals to  be  saved ;  I  should  say,  solemnly,  I  marvel 
rather  that  they  were  not  made  mad,  if  they  believed 
these  doctrines.  If  they  were  true,  the  heavens  should 
be  hung  in  black,  and  the  universe  shrouded  in  gloom  ; 


340  HOW  DOES   A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

for  they  take  away  our  heavenly  Father,  and  substitute 
in  his  place  a  stern  and  capricious  tyrant  without  jus- 
lice  and  without  love. 

But  it  would  be  said  that  there  was  great  penitence 
produced.  Penitence  for  what  ?  I  would  ask.  For  their 
wicked  deeds,  or  their  wicked  nature,  derived  from  Ad- 
am ? — for  their  real  sins  or  for  their  imaginary  guilt  ? 
But  there  was  great  joy  and  peace  succeeding.  I  an- 
swer, it  is  as  easy  to  work  upon  the  imagination  one  way 
as  another,  to  throw  off  as  to  bring  upon  the  soul  a  load 
of  unspecified  and  fictitious  guilt ;  their  real,  every-day 
transgressions  would  have  been  more  difficult  to  dispose 
of.  But  then  they  were  brought  so  entirely  to  submit 
to  God.  To  man,  I  -fear,  quite  as  much  as  to  God. 
They  are  proselyted  to  a  sect  and  pledged  unscrupu- 
lously to  go  all  lengths  with  them,  on  pain  of  denuncia- 
tion as  backsliders.  But  they  bring  forth  the  fruit  of 
goodness  in  after  life.  I  answer,  that  they  have  com- 
mitted themselves  in  such  a  way  that  it  puts  it  out  of 
my  power,  and  I  fear  out  of  their  own,  to  determine 
whether  they  act  from  religious  motives  or  not.  They 
are  now  placed  in  a  condition  to  consider,  when  about 
to  act,  not  so  much  what  is  right  and  good  in  itself, 
what  conscience  and  God's  word  sanction,  as  what 
other  people  may  think  will  become  their  Christian 
profession.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  tell,  or  perhaps 
for  themselves,  whether  they  have  or  have  not  true  re- 
ligion. To  ascertain  this,  it  would  be  necessary  to  re- 
move them  to  another  sphere  and  to  other  associations. 
If  they  did  not  there  float  just  on  the  level  of  society, 
and  take  their  tone  from  those  about  them,  that  is,  if 


HOW  DOES  A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN.  341 

they  ceased  to  refer  everything  to  a  conventional  con- 
science instead  of  their  own,  then  it  would  be  certain 
that  they  possessed  true  rehgion.  I  should,  in  a  place 
where  a  revival  had  been,  expect  to  find  much  absti- 
nence for  a  time  at  least,  in  obedience  to  this  conven- 
tional conscience,  from  gay  dressing  and  public  amuse- 
ments. I  should  desire  to  know  whether  there  was  as 
much  abstinence  from  private  scandal,  wrath,  strife,  bit- 
terness, and  evil  speaking.  I  should  be  told,  many  had 
become  men  of  prayer  ;  I  should  prefer  that  it  should  be 
more  in  their  closets  and  less  in  the  corners  of  the  street, 
more  in  the  spirit  of  the  Publican  and  less  in  the  spirit 
of  the  Pharisee.  I  would  have  them  oflfer  up  their 
prayers  for  others  more  in  the  spirit  of  affectionate  in- 
tercession, and  less  in  the  spirit  of  an  overbearing 
indictment. 

The  religion  of  revivals,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  is  essen- 
tially bigoted  and  uncharitable.  You  never  can  get  a 
young  convert,  fresh  from  the  heat  of  these  excitements, 
to  own  that  there  are  any  true  Christians  who  have  not 
been  through  a  similar  process,  or  whose  piety  has  been 
the  growth  of  years,  instead  of  the  convulsion  of  a  day. 
All  the  coin  in  circulation  is  counterfeit,  spurious,  and 
worthless  to  them,  which  does  not  bear  the  newness  and 
stamp  of  the  last  few  years.  Even  their  own  fathers 
and  mothers,  who  were  serving  God' years  before  they 
were  born,  they  come  to  look  upon  as  unconverted  and 
no  better  than  heathens,  because  they  cannot  tell  the 
precise  moment  when  they  were  brought  out  of  dark- 
ness into  light.  It  sets  up  a  false  standard  of  character, 
and  makes  religion  to  consist  not  so  much  in  a  faithful 
29* 


342  HOW  DOES  A  MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN. 

discharge  of  the  common  duties  of  life,  as  in  experi- 
ences and  going  the  round  of  meetings  and  excitements. 
It  produces  a  bigoted  attachment  to  a  certain  set  of 
doctrines  which  precludes  all  candid  examination.  They 
become  too  much  personally  interested  in  the  truth  of 
certain  doctrines  to  suppose  the  possibility  of  their  be- 
ing untrue.  Their  hopes  of  salvation  are  derived  not  so 
much  from  the  tenor  of  their  daily  life,  as  from  the  con- 
fident belief  that  at  a  particular  time  they  underwent  the 
mysterious,  irreversible  change.  Any  inquiry  casting 
doubt  on  the  miraculousness  or  the  irreversible  nature 
of  that  change,  is  resisted  with  alarm  and  indignation 
as  undermining  their  hopes,  as  abolishing  their  title  to 
spiritual  privilege  and  aristocracy,  and  reducing  them  to 
take  their  chance  among  the  common  herd  of  mankind, 
and  to  be  judged  according  to  the  deeds  done  in  the 
body. 

Let  it  not  be  understood,  however,  that  I  would  deny 
there  is  some  good  done  on  these  occasions,  even  the 
most  fanatical.  But  I  see  no  reason  to  resort  to  mira- 
cles for  the  good  effects,  whatever  they  may  be.  There 
is  a  general  waking  up  of  attention  to  the  subject,  there 
is  a  multiplication  of  the  means  of  religion,  reading  and 
hearing  the  word  of  God,  and  prayer.  These  we  have 
reason  to  believe  are  always  efficacious,  when  sincerely 
used,  and  precisely  to  the  extent  of  that  sincerity.  We 
have  no  reason  to  believe  that  all,  on  these  occasions, 
use  these  for  effect  upon  other  people.  Some  do  it  sin- 
cerely and  for  their  own  improvement,  and  such  are 
blessed  by  God  under  all  circumstances.  But  the  diffi- 
culty is,  these  new  measures  soon  become  old,  and  lose 


HOW  DOES   A   MAN  BECOME  A  CHRISTIAN.  343 

their  efficacy.  They  produce  no  more  effect  than  the 
the  old  measures,  and  when  the  power  of  excitement  is 
worn  out,  a  return  to  the  ordinary  means  of  grace  seems 
cold,  dull,  and  insipid.  These  things  being  so,  would  it 
not  be  more  modest,  more  safe,  and  more  true,  for  the 
conductors  of  these  revivals,  as  they  are  called,  if  they 
must  publish  a  statement  of  them  to  the  world,  instead 
of  the  inflation  and  exaggeration  in  which  they  indulge, 
of  the  special  visitation  of  the  Spirit,  to  say  there  had 
been  an  unusual  attention  to  the  means  of  religion,  and 
it  had  been  followed  by  the  happiest  results  ?  But  such 
a  statement  would  rob  the  peculiar  doctrines  exhibited 
of  the  confirmation,  seal,  and  sanction  of  God's  truth 
which  is  intended  to  be  given  them,  sink  the  agents  in 
the  scene  from  the  especial  and  infallible  interpreters  of 
God's  word,  into  mere,  common,  and  fallible  men,  and 
tear  the  veil  from  the  wire-working  and  machinery  they 
had  used. 

Much  is  said  at  this  time  of  the  danger  of  the  spread 
of  the  Catholic  faith.  I  fear  there  is  much  more  to  be 
apprehended  from  the  spread  of  the  Catholic  spirit,  if 
that  spirit  be  as  its  enemies  represent  it,  the  spirit  of 
priestly  domination.  The  greatest  obstruction  truth  now 
meets  is,  that  the  inquiry  is  not  what  doctrines  of  reli- 
gion are  true  and  Scriptural,  but  what  will  give  the 
priesthood  the  most  power.  The  greatest  obstruction  to 
charity,  which  is  the  bond  of  perfection  and  the  essence 
of  Christianity,  is  the  holy  horror  which  the  leaders  of 
sects  think  it  expedient  to  inspire  in  their  followers 
agaiiist  all  other  sects,  in  order  to  retain  their  allegiance, 
and  thus  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  is  in  dan- 


344  HOW   DOES  A  MAN  BECOME   A  CHRISTIAN. 

ger  of  being  degraded  from  a  pure,  dignified,  and  holy 
calling,  into  a  pitiful  partisan  warfare,  in  which  peace, 
and  truth,  and  charity,  are  to  be  sacrificed  together. 

We  return  to  the  subject  from  which  we  have  di- 
gressed. "  The  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation, 
hath  appeared  to  all  men,  teaching  us,  that  denying 
ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly, 
righteously,  and  godly  in  this  present  world."  We  be- 
lieve that  the  efficacy  of  those  means  of  grace  which 
we  enumerated  at  the  commencement  of  this  discourse, 
is  fully  sustained  by  the  representations  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting 
the  soul :  The  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making 
wise  the  simple :  The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right, 
rejoicing  the  heart :  The  commandment  of  the  Lord  is 
pure,  enlightening  the  eyes."  "  Moreover  by  them  is 
thy  servant  warned,  and  in  keeping  of  them,  there  is 
great  reward."  "  Now  ye  are  clean,"  or  pure,  says 
our  Saviour,  "through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken 
unto  you."  "  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth  ;  thy 
word  is  truth."  "  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you, 
they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life,"  Ye  received  the 
word  of  God,  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not 
as  the  word  of  men,  but  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of 
God,  which  effectually  wc»rketh  also  in  you,  that  be- 
lieve." "  Receive  with  meekness  the  engrafted  word 
which  is  able  to  save  your  souls."  QTuotations  of  this 
kind  might  be  multiplied  almost  without  ^jmit.  No 
more,  we  trust,  are  needed  to  show  that  the  sacred 
Scriptures  are  a  divine  agency  upon  the  soul  of  man, 
sufficient   to   sanctify  and  save  it,  when   studied   with 


HOW  DOES   A  MAN  BECOME   A  CHRISTIAN.  345 

earnestness  and  sincerity.  They  are  the  fountain  of 
living  waters  sufficient  for  all  the  spiritual  wants  of  the 
soul. 

As  full  and  explicit  is  the  sacred  testimony  to  the 
efficacy  of  prayer.  "  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  to  you  ; 
seek,  and  ye  shall  find ;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened 
unto  you."  "If  ye  then  being  evil  know  how  to  give 
good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall 
your  Father,  which  is  in  heaven,  give  good  things,"  or 
as  Luke  reports  it,  "  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask 
hirn.'.'  "  Watch  ye,  and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temp- 
tation." "  They  that  wait  upon  the  Lord,  shall  renew 
their  strength  ;  they  shall  mount  up  with  wings  as 
eagles ;  they  shall  run  and  not  be  weary  ;  they  shall 
walk  and  not  faint."  If  any  of  you  are  conscious  to 
yourselves  that  you  are  not  Christians  in  heart  and  life, 
it  is  not  because  divine  influence  has  been  withheld  ; 
but  because  you  have  not  earnestly  and  sincerely  used 
the  means  of  grace,  which  God  has  appointed. 


LECTURE    XIV 


ORIGIN,  NATURE,  AND  TENDENCY  OF    CREEDS. 

MATTHEW,  XXIII.  8. 

"  Bdt  be  not  ye  called  rabbi  ;  for  one  is  your  master,  even 
christ,  and  all  ye  are  brethren." 

Perhaps  there  is  nothing  which  demonstrates  more 
strikingly  the  Divine  wisdom  which  dwelt  in  Christ, 
than  this  charge  to  his  disciples  concerning  the  usurpa- 
tion of  spiritual  power.  That  this  is  his  object,  appears 
from  the  connection  in  which  it  stands,  for  he  takes 
occasion  to  give  this  warning  from  the  exhibition  of 
this  disposition  in  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  They 
were  the  religious  teachers  of  that  day,  they  abused 
their  trust  and  substituted  the  commandments  of  men 
for  the  law  and  truth  of  God.  "  The  Scribes  and  the 
Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat.  All  therefore  whatsoever 
they  bid  you  observe,  that  observe  and  do  ;  but  do  not 
ye  after  their  works ;  for  they  say,  and  do  not.  For 
they  bind  heavy  burdens,  and  grievous  to  be  borne, 
and  lay  them  on  men's  shoulders  ;  but  they  themselves 
will  not  move  them  with  one  of  their  fingers."  They 
"  love  the  uppermost  rooms  at  feasts,  and  the  chief  seats 
in  the  synagogues,  and  greetings  in  the  markets,  and  to 


TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS.  347 

be  called  of  men  Rabbi,  Rabbi.  But  be  not  ye  called 
Rabbi ;  for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye 
are  brethren."  "  But  he  that  is  greatest  among  you 
shall  be  your  servant."  Our  Lord  knew  what  was  in 
man.  He  knew  that  there  is  in  him  a  strong  desire  of 
power,  love  of  dictation,  fondness  for  eminence  and 
respect.  He  saw  it  in  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and 
he  knew  that  the  teachers  of  his  own  pure  faith  would 
be  beset  with  the  same  temptation  of  legislating  and 
lording  it  over  the  consciences  of  their  brethren.  This 
he  strictly  forbids.  "  One  is  your  Master,  even  Christ, 
and  all  ye  are'  brethren."  As  if  he  had  said,  "  Let 
none  of  my  followers,  when  I  am  gone,  assume  my  seat 
or  presume  to  dictate  to  his  brethren.  The  allegiance 
of  every  Christian  is  due  directly  to  me.  1  am  the  all- 
sufficient  teacher.  J\o  human  being  need  receive,  or 
believe,  or  practise  anything  which  I  have  not  explicitly 
taught.  My  doctrines  lie  level  with  the  meanest  ca- 
pacity. They  contain  everything  which  is  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  in  the  best  possible  mode  of  expression. 
Let  no  one  then  of  my  disciples,  usurp  dominion,  let 
no  one  submit  to  the  dictation  of  his  brethren  in  my 
church,  of  which  I  am  the  only  head." 

Such  was  the  charge  of  Christ.  But  need  1  tell  you 
that  the  apostles  were  hardly  in  their  graves  before  this 
spirit  broke  out  among  his  followers,  and  has  reigned 
from  that  day  to  this  ?  Four  centuries  had  not  passed 
before  the  seat  of  Christ  was  as  full  of  doctors  as  that 
of  Moses  had  been,  all  as  eager  as  they  were,  to  bind 
heavy  burdens  and  lay  them  upon  the  shoulders  of  men. 
Then  it  became  not  sufficient  to  assent  to  what  Christ 


348  ORIGIN,   NATURE,   AND 

and  his  apostles  had  said,  to  constitute  a  Christian,  but 
to  the  interpretation  which  these  doctors  chose  to  put 
upon  it. 

But  spiritual  tyranny  was  revived  in  the  Christian 
Church  under  circumstances  of  much  greater  cruelty 
and  oppression,  than  it  had  existed  in  the  Jewish.  For 
it  does  not  appear  that  the  Jews  ever  invented  that 
greatest  of  all  impositions  and  engines  of  spiritual  usur- 
pation,— a  Creed.  The  Jewish  sects  were  ready 
enough  to  persecute  each  other,  but  they  never  chanced 
to  adopt  the  expedient  of  legalizing  and  systematizing 
persecution  by  the  means  of  a  formulary  of  faith. 
Though  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sat  in  Moses'  seat, 
it  appears  that  they  had  more  respect  for  him  than  to 
reduce  his  religion  to  a  written  Creed  of  their  own,  and 
then  force  it  upon  other  people.  This  is  an  indignity 
which  their  Scriptures  escaped.  And  let  it  not  be  con- 
sidered harsh  that  I  speak  of  Creeds  in  such  terms  of 
unqualified  condemnation.  For  they  can  be  shown  to 
be  the  instrument  and  occasion  of  all  the  persecution, 
torture,  and  bloodshed  which  have  been  perpetrated  in 
the  Christian  Church  since  its  establishment.  Men 
have  always  been  persecuted,  and  tortured,  and  mur- 
dered, as  heretics,  for  heresy.  But  it  is  oTily  by  the 
establishment  of  a  Creed,  that  heresy  can  be  ascertained 
and  the  heretic  convicted.  So  long  as  you  keep  to  the 
words  of  the  Bible  you  can  convict  no  man  of  heresy. 
For  if  he  hold  to  the  Bible  at  all,  he  will  admit  every- 
thing there  is  in  it.  But  he  will  not  assent  to  your 
sense  of  it.  And  you  have  no  right  to  demand  it  of 
him.     He  has  just  as  much  right  to  require  of  you  to 


TENDENCY  OF   CREEDS. 


349 


assent  to  his  sense,  as  you  have  to  require  him  to  as- 
sent to  yours.  "  One  is  your  Master,  even  Christ,  and 
all  ye  are  brethren."  But  if  I,  you  may  answer,  can  get 
another  person  to  agree  with  me,  then  we  can  decree 
that  ours  is  the  true  sense,  and  then  we  can  convict  the 
third  person  of  heresy.  Or  at  least  we  have  the  power 
to  make  him  a  heretic,  right  or  wrong,  and  we  have  the 
power  to  treat  him  as  a  heretic,  to  cut  him  off  from  our 
society  and  communion  ;  we  may  persecute  him,  and  if 
we  can  persuade  ourselves  to  believe  it  is  right  and  for 
the  glory  of  God,  we  may  kill  him  for  not  assenting  to 
God's  truth.  This  is  but  a  plain,  unvarnished  state- 
ment of  the  principle  upon  which  all  Creeds  are  built. 
And  we  ask  if  anything  in  the  compass  of  imagination 
can  be  more  oppressive  and  unjust,  or  more  directly  in 
violation  of  the  express  commandment  of  Christ  ?  What 
then  is  a  Creed  ?  It  is  the  sense  which  a  majority  agree 
to  put  upon  the  words  of  Scripture,  and  force  upon  the 
minority,  or  cast  them  out  from  their  communion,  and 
cut  them  off  from  the  name,  and  rights,  and  privileges 
of  Christians. 

In  discussing  the  subject  of  Creeds,  as  we  propose  to 
do  in  this  Lecture,  we  shall  first  notice  the  manner  of 
their  introduction  into  the  Christian  Church,  and  then 
examine  their  propriety,  authority  and  effects. 

I  shall  notice  the  introduction  of  Creeds  into  the 
church  the  more  readily,  as  their  history  will  discover 
to  us  the  elements,  the  rise,  the  growth  and  establish- 
ment of  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  As  it  happens, 
the  first  public  Creed  which  was  established  in  the 
church  and  forced  upon  men  by  the  civil  arm,  was  that 
30 


350  ORIGIN,   NATURE,   AND 

of  Nice,  which,  though  it  did  not  estabhsh  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term,  estab- 
lished something  which  finally  led  to  it.  By  comparing 
this  first  monument  of  secular  and  spiritual  usurpation, 
which  bears  date  of  the  year  325,  with  what  went  be- 
fore, with  the  New  Testament,  and  what  came  after, 
we  may  perceive  from  what  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
arose,  how  far  it  had  then  proceeded,  and  how  it  was 
afterward  brought  to  its  present  state. 

At  first  sight  it  might  seem  utterly  unaccountable 
how  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  could  have  grown  out 
of  the  pure  Monotheism  of  the  Jews.  At  the  time  of 
Christ,  no  such  thing  had  ever  been  heard  of  among 
them,  and  nothing  could  be  more  abhorrent  to  all  their 
conceptions  of  God.  The  Holy  Spirit  had  been  spoken 
of  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  same  manner  that  it 
was  afterwards  in  the  New.  But  no  one  had  ever 
dreamt  of  understanding  it  as  a  person.  It  was  always 
considered  by  the  Jews,  who  certainly  ought  to  have 
understood  the  force  of  their  own  language  better  than 
any  one  else,  as  the  power  of  God  in  general  or  special 
action,  and  is  so  considered  to  this  day.  What  at  this 
time  could  have  led  to  its  deification  and  addition  as 
an  object  of  worship  ? 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  had  appeared  among  the  Jews  and 
claimed  to -be,  and  was  proved  by  God  to  be,  their 
Messiah.  But  no  Jew  certainly  ever  mistook  him  for 
that  God  who  sent  him,  or  for  a  Person  of  God,  for 
nothing  could  be  more  revolting  to  a  Jew,  than  any- 
thing which  would  impair,  in  the  remotest  degree,  the 
Divine  unity.     During  the  days  of  the  apostles  we  find 


TENDENCY  OF   CREEDS.  351 

no  trace  of  the  association  of  Christ  or  the  Holy  Spirit 
with  God,  as  objects  of  worship.  There  is  no  trace  of 
such  a  doctrine  in  the  preaching  of  the  apostles  for 
thirty  years  recorded  in  the  Acts.  And  so  the  New 
Testament  closed.  The  apostles  slept  with  their  fa- 
thers, the  Jewish  nation  was  destroyed,  and  the  Gospel 
fell  into  the  hands  of  those  who  had  been  educated  in 
heathenism  and  idolatry.  The  men  of  learning  who 
succeeded  the  apostles  as  teachers  in  the  Christian 
Church,  and  by  their  writings  and  speculations  formed 
and  guided  the  opinions  of  ite  members,  had  been  hea- 
thenfphilosophers.  And  what  could  heathen  philoso- 
phers find  in  the  New  Testament  as  the  elements,  the 
basis'on  which_to  build  such  a  stupendous  doctrine  as 
the  Deity^of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  These  elements  they 
found  in  two  phrases,  "Son  of  God,"  and  "Logos," 
word,  orVisdom,  or  reason.  "  Son  of  God,"  with  the 
Jews,  as  we  have  already  demonstrated  in  the  second 
Lecture,  was  a  title  merely  equivalent  to  Messiah,  and 
was  applied  by  Nathaniel  to  Jesus  before  he  knew  of 
his  miraculous  birth  even,  while  he  thought  him  the  son 
of  Joseph.  "  Logos,"  word,  or  wisdom,  or  reason,  was 
applied  by  John  to  that  Divine  wisdom  and  power 
which  God  manifested  through  Jesus,  and  by  which  he 
had  created  the  universe.  But  these  phrases  were 
caught  up  by  these  heathen  philosophers,  and  made  to 
mean'something  entirely  dift'erent.  To  them,  heathens 
as  they  had  been,  the  idea  of  a  derived  and  subordinate 
God,  or  a  complexity  in  the  Divine  Nature,  was  not  at 
all  shocking.  They,  therefore,  carried  the  phrase  "  Son 
of  God,"    which  in  the  mind  of  a  Jew,  conveyed   no 


352  ORIGIN,  NATURK,    AND 

idea  of  a  superior  nature,  back  into  eternity,  and  made 
Christ  instead  of  a  created  being,  one  derived  immedi- 
ately from  God,  and  of  the  same  nature.  And  what 
confirmed  them  in  this  notion,  was  the  coincidence  of 
the  word  Logos,  which  John  used  to  express  the  power 
and  wisdom  of  God  which  dwelt  in  Christ,  with  the 
same  term  Logos  in  their  own  philosophy,  which  they 
had  learned  of  Plato  and  his  followers. 

The  philosophical  speculations  of  that  age,  which 
were  a  mixture  of  the  Platonic  and  the  Oriental,  were 
very  loose  on  the  subject  cA  the  Unity  of  God.  They 
both  allowed  of  derived  Divinity,  of  emanations  from 
God,  still  partaking  of  the  Divine  Nature.  Plato  had 
spoken  of  the  Logos,  or  reason  of  God,  as  somehow 
distinct  from  his  essential  being,  by  which  he  created 
the  world,  and  his  followers  had  spoken  of  it  as  a  dis- 
tinct Being.  Philo,  a  learned  Jew,  a  contemporary  of 
the  apostles  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  had  amalga- 
mated in  some  measure,  this  Platonic  heathen  philoso- 
phy with  the  Jewish  theology.  He  represented  this 
Logos,  or  reason  of  God,  as  a  Person,  as  a  Being  ema- 
nated or  begotten,  not  uncreated  like  the  great  Su- 
preme, nor  created  like  other  beings,  but  a  medium  be- 
tween the  two.  This  Logos  he  called  "  first  born  Son," 
and  represents  all  things  as  created,  preserved  and  gov- 
erned by  him.  This  is  he  who  appeared  to  the  patri- 
archs of  the  Old  Testament ;  for  the  Supreme  God, 
who  cannot  be  limited  by  any  place,  could  not  appear 
in  a  visible  form.  From  this  time  the  Logos  became 
the  advocate  of  men  with  God.  God  sends  him  into 
virtuous  souls,  who  are  instructed  by  him.     He  is  the 


TENDENCY   OF   CREEDS.  353 

secondary  God,  who  is  subordinate  to  the  Supreme. 
Now  these  were  speculations  entered  into  by  a  Jewishr 
heathen  philosopher  before  the  Gospels  were  written, 
who  had,  it  is  probable,  never  heard  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, or  his  doctrines.  Here  then  we  have  the  very 
elements,  of  a  purely  heathen  origin,  the  materials,  the 
substratum  of  what  afterwards  was  formed  into  the  Sec- 
ond Person  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  Divine  Nature  of 
Christ.  Plato  had  personified  the  Intellectual  Energy 
of  God,  by  which  he  planned,  created  and  goCerns  all 
things.  His  followers  made  it  a  real  Person,  an  em- 
anation from  God.  Philo,  the  Jew,  and  others  with 
him  probably,  introduced  this  doctrine  into  the  Jewish 
Theology,  and  corrupted  with  it  their  pure  Theism,  by 
representing  this  intermediate  Being,  this  Platonic  Lo- 
gos, to  have  been  the  medium  through  which  the  Je- 
hovah of  the  Jews  created  the  world  and  held  inter- 
course with  the  patriarchs.  Afterwards  the  Gospels 
were  written.  Three  of  them,  which  certainly  contain 
all  that  is  essential  to  Christian  doctrine,  have  no  ex- 
pression, with  the  exception  of  "  Son  of  God,"  and  that 
as  an  equivalent  to  Messiah,  which  could  furnish  the 
remotest  analogy  between  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  the 
Logos  of  Plato  and  Philo.  John  does  use  the  word 
Logos,  in  the  sense  of  that  wisdom  and  power  of  God 
which  were  manifested  in  Jesus,  but  as  far  as  we  can 
perceive  without  any  idea  of  personality,  hardly  of  per- 
sonification, much  less  of  dividing  the  Divine  Nature. 
Here  then  was  the  point  of  coincidence  and  conjunc- 
tion. The  Christian  Fathers,  who  had  been  heathen 
philosophers,  into  whose  hands  the  administration  of 
30* 


354  ORIGIN,   NATURE,   AND 

Christianity  fell  after  the  apostles,  joined  these  two  to- 
gether, the  Jewish  Messiah  and  the  Platonic  Logos. 
And  hence  resulted  that  strange  fancy  of  a  human  and 
a  Divine  nature  combined  in  one  Person,  and  the  still 
stranger  introduction  of  a  Second  Person  into  the  Je- 
hovah of  the  Jews.  The  first  elements  of  the  Trinity 
then,  grew  out  of  putting  heathen  meanings  on  Jewish 
words,  terms,  and  phrases.  "  Son  of  God,"  which 
with  a  Jew  had  no  reference  to  nature  at  all  when  ap- 
plied to  the  Messiah,  was  carried  back  into  the  ages  of 
eternity,  and  made  to  mean  derivation  from  the  sub- 
stance of  God.  And  "  Logos"  was  made  to  mean,  not 
the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  manifested  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  but  the  Platonic  Logos,  an  attribute  or  por- 
tion of  God,  become  a  Person. 

To  be  convinced  that  this  was  the  origin  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  so  abhorrent  to  the  Theism,  both 
of  the  Jews,  and  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  it  is  only  ne- 
cessary to  examine  the  philosophical  speculations  of  that 
age,  in  connection  with  the  writings  of  the  Christian 
Fathers  before  the  council  of  Nice.  Of  the  use  they 
made  of  these  two  phrases  "  Son"  and  "  Logos^"  I 
shall  give  you  some  specimens.  I  shall  make  these 
quotations  from  the  Christian  Fathers,  to  show  of  what 
elements  they  constructed  the  Trinity,  how  far  it  had 
advanced  in  their  hands,  how  much  more  in  these  spec- 
ulations it  is  like  the  Platonic  system  we  have  been  ex- 
amining, than  like  the  theology  of  the  Jews,  or  modern 
and  perfected  Trinitarianism.  My  quotations  from 
them  will  be  taken  from  a  work  of  Professor  Stuart,  of 
Andover,  a  witness  in  no  way  friendly  to  the   conclu- 


TKNDENCY  OF   CREEDS.  355 

sions  I  draw  from  his  premises,  and  therefore  the  more 
likely  to  be  impartial.  The  conclusion  which  he  avows, 
after  having  carefully  examined  this  whole  subject,  is 
summed  up  in  these  words.  "  The  great  body  of  the 
early  and  influential  Christian  Fathers,  whose  works  are 
extant,  believed  that  the  Son  of  God  was  begotten  at 
a  period  not  long  before  the  creation  of  the  world  ;  or 
in  other  words,  that  he  became  a  separate  hypostasis 
at  or  near  the  time  when  the  work  of  creation  was  to 
be  performed." 

The  first  writer  of  eminence  after  the  apostles,  whose 
writings  are  extant,  was  Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch, 
who  flourished  about  the  close  of  the  first  century.  In 
his  writings  there  is  such  a  passage  as  this :  ''  There  is 
One  God,  who  revealed  himself  by  Jesus  Christ  his 
Son,  who  is  his  eternal  Logos  not  proceeding  from  Si- 
lence." Who  does  not  perceive  that  this  is  as  identi- 
cal with  the  Platonic  Logos  as  it  is  repugnant  to  the 
one  Jehovah  of  the  Jews,  and  the  three  equal  persons 
of  the  modern  Trinity  ? 

The  next  distinguished  Father  I  quote  is  Justin 
Martyr,  a  native  of  Palestine,  and  who  flourished  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  He  had  been  a 
heathen  philosopher,  and  he  thus  expresses  his  ideas  of 
the  Divine  Nature.  "  God  in  the  beginning,  before 
anything  was  created,  begat  a  Kational  Power  from 
himself;  which  is  called  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  Glory  of 
the  Lord,  and  sometimes  Son,  Wisdom,  Angel,  God, 
Lord,  Logos.     Sometimes  also   he  calls  him   Leader. 

In  the  form  of  a  man  he  appeared  to  Joshua,  the  Son 
of  Nun.     All  the  above  names  he  bears  because  he  min- 


356 


ORIGIN,   NATURE,   AND 


isters  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  was  begotten  by 
the  will  of  the  Father."  How  this  wisdom  or  reason 
of  God  could  have  emanated  from  him,  he  goes  on  to 
describe.  "  Something  like  this  we  see  happens  to 
•  ourselves.  When  we  utter  a  reasonable  word,  we  be- 
get reason,  or  logos,  but  not  by  abscission,  so  that  our 
reason  is  diminished.  Another  thing  like  this  we  see, 
in  respect  to  fire  ;  which  suffers  no  diminution  by  kind- 
ling another  fire,  but  still  remains  the  same." 

In  another  place  he  says  ;  "The  Father  of  the  Uni- 
verse who  is  unbegotten,  has  no  name ;  for  to  have  a 
proper  name,  implies  that  there  is  one  antecedent  to 
the  person  named,  who  has  given  the  appellation.  For 
the  titles,  Father,  God,  Creator,  Lord,  Sovereign,  are 
not  proper  names,  but  appellations  deduced  from  his 
beneficence  and  his  operations.  But  his  Son,  who  only 
is  properly  called  Son,  the  Logos,  who  existed  with 
him,"  (or  in  him,)  "  before  the  creation,  and  was  gen- 
erated when  in  the  beginning  he  created  and  adorned 
all  things  by  him,  is  called  Christ,  because  God  anoint- 
ed and  adorned  all  things  by  him."  Who  does  not 
see  in  this  strange  medley  the  Platonic  Logos,  which 
Philo  had  interpolated  into  the  Jehovah  of  the  Jews, 
and  made  the  medium  of  his  creating  the  world  and 
conversing  with  the  patriarchs,  fitted  and  joined  to  the 
names,  titles,  and  phrases  applied  to  the  Jewish  Mes- 
siah ?  Christ,  or  Anointed,  was  a  title  which  Jesus 
shared  with  the  kings  and  priests  and  eminent  men  of  the 
Old  Testament,  from  the  anointing  oil  of  consecration. 
But  by  this  Platonic  Christian  Father  it  is  carried  back 
to  the  creation,  and  applied  to  the  Logos  by  which  God 


TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS.  357 

created  the  world,  "because  God  anointed  and  adorned 
all  things  by  him." 

The  Logos  of  John  is  made  identical  with  the  Logos 
of  Plato.  And  "  Son  of  God,"  which  the  Jewish  Mes- 
siah shared  with  the  good  and  eminent  of  the  olden 
time,  though  in  a  pre-eminent  but  not  specifically  dif- 
ferent sense,  was  perverted  in  the  same  way,  and  made 
to  mean  that  this  imaginary  Person  was  begotten  im- 
mediately from  the  substance  of  God. 

We  have  room  for  extracts  from  only  one  more  of 
the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.  TerluUian,  a  Latin,  born  in 
Carthage,  and  who  wrote  about  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  expresses  himself  thus  of  the  Divine  nature. 
"  Before  the  creation,  God  was  alone,  his  own  world 
and  place ;  alone,  because  there  was  nothing  extrinsic 
to  him.  Yet  not  alone,  for  he  had  with  him  what  he 
had  in  him,  viz.  his  own  reason.  For  God  is  a  rational 
Being,  and  his  reason  was  in  him  first,  and  so  all  things 
were  derived  from  him,  which  reason  is  his  understand- 
ing. The  Greeks  call  this  Logos,  and  we  Sermo.  On 
this  account  we  are  accustomed,  by  simply  translating 
the  word  (Logos)  to  say,  that  the  Word  was  in  the  be- 
ginning with  God  ;  when  we  should  say,  to  speak  cor- 
rectly, Reason  was  first ;  for  God  from  the  beginning 
was  not  a  speaking  but  a  reasoning  Being.''  How  this 
word  or  wisdom  of  God  became  Son  he  goes  on  to  de- 
clare. "  Then  the  W^ord  himself  assumed  his  form  and 
beauty,  sound  and  voice,  when  God  said,  Let  there  be 
light.  This  is  the  perfect  nativity  of  the  Word,  when 
he  proceeds  from  God,  formed  by  him,  first  mentally 
by  the  name  of  wisdom,  then  generated  in   fact.     By 


358  ORIGIN,  NATURE,   AND 

this  procession  become  he  the  first  born  Son,  before 
anything  else  was  born  ;  and  the  only  begotten." 

Again  :  "  He  (God)  is  not  Father  always,  because 
he  is  always  God.  For  he  could  not  be  a  Father|  be- 
fore'^he  had  a  Son  ;  as  there  cannotfjbe  a  judge  before 
there  is  a  crime.  There  was  a  time  when  the  Son  was 
not,  who-;'mightl  make  the  Lord  a  Father."  Again  : 
"  Let  Hemogenes  acknowledge  that  the  wisdom  of  God 
is  spoken  of  as  born  and  formed,  lest  we  should  believe 
that  anything  besides  God  only  was  unborn  and  un- 
formed. For  if  within  God,  what  was  from  him  and 
in  him,  was  not  without  a  beginning,  namely,'^his^Wis- 
dom,  born  and  formed  from  the  time  when  the  mind  of 
God  began  to  be  agitated  about,  the  formation  of  the 
world  ;  much  more  must  we  deny»that  what  was  with- 
out God  is  eternal." 

Such  were  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  before  the  Nicene  council,  and  such  was 
the  orthodoxy  of  that  age  ;  since  the  only  realMefinition 
of  orthodoxy  is  the  opinion  of  the  majority  for  the  time 
being. 

I  might  go  on  to  quote  pages  of  such  language  from 
the  principal  writers  of  that  period,  but^I  deem  it  un- 
necessary. Enough  has  been  quoted,  we  hope,  to  show 
out  of  what  materials  the  Trinity ^was  formed.  Enough 
has  been  quoted  to  show  how  the  pure  Theism  of  the 
Jews  was  corrupted  by  amalgamation  with  Pagan  phi- 
losophy, and  how  the  Platonic  Logos  was  engrafted  up- 
on certain  expressions  of  the  New  Testament.  We  see 
how  the  one  Jehovah  of  the  Jews  was  corrupted  at  this 
period,  but  at  the  same    time   how  entirely  different 


TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS.  359 

was  the  orthodoxy  of  that  time  from  the  modern  three 
equal  Persons  in  one  God.  Had  the  Gospel  always 
remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  and  had  they  never 
been  tinctured  with  heathen  philosophy,  it  is  hardly 
possible  that  such  a  doctrineas  the  Trinity  could  ever 
have  been  invented.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  they 
would  have  ever  violated  the  Unity  of  their  Jehovah  by 
interpolating  their  Messiah  into  his  being,  who  was  to 
be  a  lineal  descendant  of  David.  And  it  is  not  more 
likely  that  they  would  have  deified  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  they  had  known  from  the  commencement  of  their 
Scriptures  as  the  power  and  influence  of  God  ;  espe- 
cially as  neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  »taught  any  new 
doctrines  as  to  the  Divine  Nature.  The  heathen,  or 
those  who  had  been  educated  heathens,  into  whose  hands 
the  Gospel  fell,  were  not  thus  fortified  against  miscon- 
ception. They  were  prepared  for  it.  There  was  no 
objection  to  derived  Divinity  in  the  mind  of  a  man 
whose  conceptions  of  the  spirituality  of  the  Divine  Na- 
ture were  as  low  as  those  of  the  heathen  were,  and  who 
had  been  accustomed  to  the  idea  of  one  God  being  de- 
rived from  another.  And  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the 
Logos,  had  prepared  them  to  pufr  the  just  construction 
upon  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  which  they 
actually  did  put  upon  it.  There  was  another  influence 
which  led  to  the  same  result.  The  cross  of  Christ  bore 
heavily  upon  the  first  converts  from  Paganism.  The  op- 
probrium of  being  followers  of  a  crucified  malefactor 
made  them  turn  eagerly  to  anything  which  might  exalt 
their  master  in  the  eyes  of  their  vilifiers.  What  could 
do  this  more  eflfectually  than  establishing  his  identity 
with  the  Platonic  Logos  ? 


360  ORIGIN,   NATURE,  AND 

But  what,  it  may  be  asked,  has  all  this  to  do  with 
Creeds  ?  We  shall  soon  see.  The  elements  of  which 
this  intermediate,  imaginary  Being  (for  he  was  not  yet 
exalted  to  anything  like  an  equal  Person  of  a  Trinity) 
was  made  up,  were  somewhat  incongruous,  and  con- 
tained, as  experience  afterward  showed,  the  materials 
of  endless  dispute.  The  two  principal  terms  in  the  New 
Testament  on  which  the  Platonic  Logos  was  engrafted 
were  the  words  Logos  and  Son.  A  dispute  arose  which 
should  have  the  most  influence  in  settling  his  nature. 
Logos  or  Son.  Logos,  which  means  reason,  when  ap- 
plied to  God  must  mean  the  reason  of  God.  This  was 
of  course  always  in  him.  But  Son,  on  the  other  hand, 
expresses  and  implies  derivation,  a  beginning  to  exist. 
Hence  the  dispute  between  the  Arians  and  Athanasians 
which  gave  rise  to  the  Nicene  council  and  Creed.  This 
was  in  the  year  325.  Before  this,  however,  there  had 
been  attempts  to  cast  ofT  Platonism  and  to  return  to  the 
pure  Theism  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  New  Testament. 
Particularly  Sabellius  had  attempted  to  reconcile  the 
Logos  of  Plato  with  the  Logos  of  St.  John,  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner.  "  The  Word  or  Logos  never  proceeds 
out  of  the  Father,  but  as  our  reason  proceeds,  as  I  may 
say,  out  of  us,  when  it  makes  known  by  words  and 
commands  what  are  our  thoughts  and  our  desires.  So 
the  Word  or  Logos  which  was  in  Jesus  Christ,  is  only 
a  declarative  Word,  which  manifested  to  Jesus  the 
knowledge  of  salvation  ;  and  an  operative  Word  which 
conferred  upon  him  miraculous  power.  It  is  only  an 
operation  of  the  Deity,  a  full  eftusion  of  the  divine  wis- 
dom and  power  in  the  soul  of  our  Lord."*     But  as  the 

*  Lavdner.  vol.  iii.  76. 


TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS.  361 

Platonists  constituted  the  great  majority  of  the  church, 
and  of  course  their  sentiments  were  orthodox,  Sabelhus 
and  his  followers  were  considered  as  heretics,  and  were 
able  to  effect  but  little. 

But  the  dispute  between  the  Arians  and  Athanasians 
was  between  two  parties  both  Platonists,  both  holding 
to  the  personality  of  the  Logos.  Both  thought  him  an 
emanation  from  God.  But  the  dispute  was  as  to  the 
wanner  of  that  emanation.  Arius  said,  as  he  was  Son 
he  must  have  been  derived,  must  have  begun  to  exist. 
Athanasius  said,  that  as  he  was  the  Logos,  the  reason 
of  the  Father,  he  must  always  have  existed  in  him,  or 
at  least  the  substance  or  material  out  of  which  he  was 
produced.  Such  was  the  nature  of  a  dispute  which  set 
the  whole  Christian  church  in  a  blaze  ;  a  dispute,  you 
have  seen,  on  a  question  of  heathen  philosophy  rather 
than  Christian  theology,  and  which  occasioned  the 
Council  of  Nice. 

Constantine  was  then  on  the  throne  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  he  was  the  first  emperor  who  embraced  the 
Christian  faith.  He  had  undertaken  to  patronize  the 
Christian  church,  and  this  dispute  caused  him  great 
uneasiness.  In  order  to  settle  it  he  assembled  a  council 
of  bishops  from  the  different  parts  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire at  the  city  of  Nice  in  Bythinia.  The  Emperor  was 
there  in  person,  and  present  during  their  deliberations. 
The  sentiments  of  one  of  the  parties  on  this  occasion 
we  learn  from  Arius  himself.  "  We  cannot  assent  to 
those  expressions,  always  Father,  always  Son,  at  the 
same  time  Father,  at  the  same  time  Son  ;  that  the  Son 
always  co-exists  with  the  Father ;  that  the  Father  has 
31 


362  ORIOIN,   NATURK,    AND 

no  pre-existence  before  the  Son,  not  so  much  as  in 
thought,  or  a  moment.  But  this  we  think  and  teach, 
that  the  Son  is  not  unbegotten  nor  a  part  of  the  un- 
begotten  by  any  means.  Nor  is  he  made  out  of  any 
pre-existent  thing  ;  but  by  the  will  and  pleasure  of 
the  Father  he  existed  before  time  and  ages,  the  only 
begotten  God,  unchangeable ;  and  that  before  he  was 
begotten,  or  made,  or  founded,  or  designed,  he  was 
not.  But  we  are  persecuted,  because  we  say,  that  the 
Son  had  a  beginning,  and  that  God  had  no  beginning. 
For  this  we  are  persecuted,  and  because  we  say,  the 
Son  is  out  of  nothing.  Which  we  therefore  say,  be- 
cause he  is  not  a  part  of  God,  nor  made  out  of  any  pre- 
existent  thing."  What  was  the  opinion  of  the  Atha- 
nasians,  we  learn  from  the  Creed  which  they,  happening 
to  be  the  majority,  established  as  truth.  It  was  this. 
"  We  believe  in  One  God  the  Father  Almighty,  the 
Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible  ;  and  in  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,' the  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father, 
only  begotten,  that  is,  of  the  substance  of  the  Father ; 
God  of  God,"  (or  as  it  is  in  the  original  Osog  «x  -O-eov, 
God  out  of,  or  from  or  derived  from  God)  "  Light  of 
Light,  very  God  of  very  God  ;  begotten,  not  made  ;  of 
the  same  substance  with  the  Father  ;  by  whom  all  things 
were  made,  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth  ; 
who  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation,  descended,  and 
was,  incarnate,  and  became  man  ;  suffered  and  rose 
again  the  third  day,  ascended  into  the  heavens,  and  will 
come  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead  ;  and  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  those  who  say  that  there  was  a  time  when 
he  was  not,  and  that  he  was  not  before  he  was  begot- 


TENDENCY    OF  CREEDS.  363 

ten,  and  that  he  was  made  out  of  nothing ;  or  affirm 
that  he  is  of  any  other  substance  or  essence  ;  or  that 
the  Son  of  God  is  created,  and  mutable  or  changeable, 
the  Catholic  church  doth  pronounce  accursed." 

The  point  you  perceive,  which  is  decided  in  this  cu- 
rious mixture  of  Platonism  and  Christianity,  is  the  pre- 
dominance given  to  the  term  Logos  or  reason  over  Son, 
in  the  composition  of  that  imaginary  Being  whom  the 
Platonists  imported  into  Christianity  and  engrafted  on 
these  two  phrases  in  the  Gospels.  As  the  Logos  was  the 
reason  of  God,  it  must  always  have  been,  and  though  at 
a  certain  point  of  duration  he  might  have  become  Son, 
still  though  emanated  he  did  not  begin  to  exist,  or  at 
least  the  substance  out  of  which  he  was  made  was  not 
created  as  Arius  held  he  was,  out  of  nothing,  or  out  of 
what  did  not  before  exist.  How  far  the  point  decided 
by  this  council  was  one  of  Pagan  philosophy  or  Christian 
theology  we  leave  every  one  to  judge.  Still  there  was 
a  difficulty.  The  word  Son  yet  remained,  and  Arius' 
objection  was  still  lurking  in  it.  How  could  a  Being 
be  a  Son  or  begotten,  and  still  not  be  begotten  at  some 
point  in  duration,  or  begin  to  be?  They  invented  an 
expedient  to  reconcile  the  eternal  Logos  with  the  begot- 
ten Son  by  saying  he  was  eternally  begotten,  always 
proceeding  from  God  as  light  does  from  the  sun,  and 
hence  the  expression  of  the  Creed,  "  Light  of  Light," 
light  emanating  from  light. 

Such  was  the  Nicene  Creed,  such  the  causes  which 
led  to  its  enactment,  and  so  wide  was  it  of  all  the  points 
of  the  more  enlightened  controversies  of  modern  days.- 
It  was  not,  it  is  true,  the  first  Creed  that  had  been 


364  ORIGIN,  NATURE,   AND 

enacted.  Others  had  been  before  it  by  smaller  coun- 
cils. They  belonged  to  the  time  and  the  disputes  of 
the  age,  and  they  passed  away  with  the  age  that  gave 
them  birth.  So  would  this  have  done  but  for  the  cir- 
cumstances under|  which  it  was  established.  It  was 
under  the  patronage  of  a  Roman  Emperor.  And  dis- 
sent from  it  became  something  different  from  dissent 
from  a  council  of  mere  ecclesiastics,  unbacked  by  the 
civil  power.  Arius  and  his  party  were  banished  ;  and 
the  solemnization  of  the  connection  between  church 
and  state  was  marked  by  its  natural  consequence,  civil 
persecution. 

I  said  at  the  commencement  of  this  discourse,  that 
the  history  of  Creeds  gives  us  a  view  of  the  foreign 
elements  of  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
formed.  That  I  am  confident  has  already  been  dem- 
onstrated. I  said  likewise  that  they  furnish  the  evi- 
dence of  its  gradual  growth  and  of  the  several  stages 
of  its  progress.  That  assertion  I  shall  now  attempt  to 
make  good.  The  Nicene  Creed  of  the  year  325,  shows 
where  it  stood  at  that  period.  It  occupies,  as  you 
perceive,  a  middle  ground  between  the  pure  Monotheism 
of  the  Jews  and  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  three 
equal  Persons  of  the  modern  Trinity.  The  apostles' 
Creed,  which  in  all  its  essential  articles  dates  further 
back,  and  occupies  about  the  same  middle  ground  be- 
tween the  Nicene  Creed  and  the  New  Testament  as 
the  Athanasian,  which  is  much  later,  does  between  the 
same  Creed  and  the   modern  Trinitarianism. 

The  apostles'  Creed,  as  it  is  erroneously  called,  you 
need  not  be  reminded  has  no  claim  to  be  considered 


TENDENCY   OF   CREEDS.  365 

the  composition  of  the  apostles.  So  far  from  it,  that 
we  have  no  authentic  copy  of  it,  even  so  far  back  as 
the  council  of  Nice.  But  then  we  have  the  substance 
of  it  in  several  Creeds,  in  the  writings  of  the  ante-Nicene 
Fathers,  with  this  exception,  which  is  somewhat  mate- 
rial to  our  present  subject.  In  the  apostles'  Creed,  as 
read  in  our  churches,  it  begins,  "  I  believe  in  God  the 
Father,"  etc.  In  the  Fathers  it  is,  I  believe  in  One 
God  the  Father,  (in  the  Greek  elg  -Osog  or  sva  &eov)  in 
the  Latin,  One  only  God  (unicum  Deum).  It  was  not 
only  not  written  by  the  apostles,  but  bears  the  marks 
of  having  been  the  gradual  growth  of  many  ages. 

In  all  the  Creeds  of  the  primitive  ages,  long  as  they 
at  length  became,  we  recognize  various  and  successive 
metamorphoses  of  the  form  of  baptism.  As  it  stands  in 
the  Gospels,  it  contains  a  summary  of  the  Christian  Faith 
to  be  taught  by  the  apostles  to  the  world,  and  acknow- 
ledged by  their  converts.  The  belief  in  one  God,  the 
Divine  mission  of  Jesus,  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God, 
or  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  that 
is,  the  reality  of  the  miracles  which  proved  the  Gospel 
true.  And  these  are  precisely  the  points  which  are  la- 
bored in  all  treatises  on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity, 
by  all  sects  and  parties  at  the  present  day.  That  there 
was  no  scrupulous  adherence  to  the  precise  form,  ap- 
pears in  the  probability  there  is  from  the  baptism  of 
Philip,  that  with  the  Jews  or  Jewish  proselytes  to 
whom  the  one  God  was  already  known,  the  name  of 
Jesus  only  was  used.  And  likewise  from  a  form  of  bap- 
tism, which  appears  in  the  works  of  Justin  Martyr,  in 
the  second  century.  "  They  are  baptized  in  the  name 
31* 


366  ORIGIN,  NATURE,   AND 

of  God  the  Father  and  Sovereign  of  ali,"  or  of  the  uni- 
verse, "  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit."  This  was  a  summary  of  doctrine  to  be  taught, 
and  of  faith  to  be  received.  So  it  appears  in  the  original 
commission :  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing,"  or,  as  it.evidently  means,  Go  teach  and  bap- 
tize all  nations  into  the  faith  of  one  God,  etc.  After 
suitable  instruction  in  these  and  other  points  of  the 
Christian  faith,  the  converts  in  the  early  church  as- 
sented to  their  belief  of  them  at,  and  by  the  ceremony  of 
baptism.  It  was  gradually  drawn  out,  as  we  have  seen 
it  in  the  case  of  Justin  Martyr,  by  the  explicit  statement 
of  the  things  implied  in  it,  and  by  other  causes  which  I 
shall  mention,  into  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of 
heaven- and  earth,  and  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  Son  our 
Lord,  who  was  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  cruci- 
fied, dead  and  buried.  The  third  day  he  rose  from  the 
dead,  ascended  into  heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  the  Father  Almighty,  from  whence  he  shall  come 
to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead.  I  believe  in  the 
Holy' Ghost,  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  ever- 
lasting." The  descent  into  hell,  and  the  communion  of 
saints,  are  of  a  date  subsequent  to  the  Council  of  Nice. 
Besides  the  drawing  out  of  what  was  supposed  to  be 
implied  by  all  parties  in  the  form  of  baptism,  some 
clauses  were  inserted  in  opposition  to  certain  heresies 
which  sprung  up  one  after  another.  His  "  being  con- 
ceived of  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary," 


TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS.  367 

was  introduced  in  opposition,  as  it  would  seem,  to  the 
Cerintliians  and  others,  who  denied  the  miraculous  birth. 
"  Suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead, 
and  buried,"  in  opposition  to  the  Gnostics,  who  asserted 
that  Christ  was  a  man  in  appearance  only  ;  "  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,"  against  the  Montanists,  who  held  that  only 
those  sins  could  be  forgiven  which  were  committed  be- 
fore baptism,  etc.  However  these  things  may  be,  as  far 
as  the  Divine  Nature  is  concerned,  there  is  nothing  to 
which  the  most  scrupulous  stickler  for  the  Unity  of  God 
can  object.  The  phrases  are  all  scriptural,  and  assert 
nothing  more  than  the  same  phrases  in  the  Gospels. 
The  Platonic  Nature  of  Christ  is  pot  so  much  as  hinted 
at,  or  even  his  pre-existence,  unless  it  may  be  thought 
to  be  in  the  epithet  "  only,"  or  "  only  begotten," 
which  at  that  period  was  merely  synonymous  with  well 
beloved. 

As  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  so  much  as  its  personality 
is  asserted  either  in  this  or  the  Nicene  Creed.  There 
was  no  danger  that  this  Creed  would  mislead  any  one 
as  to  the  Unity  of  God,  as  it  says,  "  I  believe  in  God," 
(or  "  one  God,"  as  the  Creeds  of  that  time  have  it,) 
"  and  in  Jesus  Christ."  There  was  no  danger  that  one 
who  was  born,  crucified  and  buried,  and  afterwards  sat 
on  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father  Almighty,  would 
be  mistaken  for,  or  confounded  vvitli  that  God  at  whose 
right  hand  he  sat.  "  One  God  the  Father  Almighty 
and  Jesus  Christ,  etc.  and  the  Holy  Spirit,"  conveys  a 
very  different  idea  of  Deity  from  One  God  consisting 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

The  only  other  Creed  which  I  have  room  to  mention, 


368  ORIGIN,  NATURE,   AND 

and  to  which  I  have  already  alluded  as  occupying  a 
middle  ground  between  the  Nicene  Creed  and  modern 
Trinitarianism,  is  the  Athanasian.  1  should  have  said 
that  it  went  the  whole  length  with  the  modern  Trinity, 
were  there  not  a  remnant  of  derivation  in  some  of  its 
clauses,  such  as  these :  "  The  Father  is  made  of  none, 
neither  created  nor  begotten.  The  Son  is  of  the  Father 
alone,  not  made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten,  but  pro- 
ceeding." This  Creed,  as  is  well  known,  was  not  com- 
posed by  Athanasius,  nor  cited  till  four  hundred  years 
after  his  death  ;  nor,  of  course,  till  about  eight  hundred 
years  after  Christ. 

In  order  to  give  you  at  one  view  the  rise,  progress, 
and  perfection  of  the  Trinity,  as  well  as  a  sketch  of  the 
gradual  advance  of  imposition  upon  the  human  mind 
by  means  of  formularies  of  faith,  I  shall  give  you,  in 
order,  the  Creeds  we  have  noticed. 

I  begin  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  of  the  New 
Testament  concerning  the  Divine  Nature. 

"  Hear,  O  Israel ;  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord."  Or, 
as  it  is  quoted  from  Moses  :  "  Jehovah,  your  God,  Jeho- 
vah is  one."  "  This  is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee  the 
only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent." 
"  To  us  there  is  one  God  the  Father." 

The  form  of  baptism  :  "  Baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
The  same  form,  as  it  was  used  and  understood  by  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  in  the  second  century  :  "  In  the  name  of  God, 
the  Father  and  Sovereign  of  the  universe,  and  of  our  Sa- 
viour Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

The  Apostles'  Creed,  vc hich  grew  out  of  this  form  in 


TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS.  369 

tlie  first  ages  :  "  I  believe  in  God,  (or,  as  some  Creeds 
Slave  it,  "  one,"  and  some,  "  one  only  God,")  the  Father 
Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  in  Jesus 
Christ  his  only  Son  our  Lord,  who  was  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  tlie  Virgin  Mary,  suffered  un- 
der Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried.  The 
third  day  he  rose  again  from  the  dead,  ascended  into 
heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, from  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  both  the 
quick  and  the  dead.  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  in 
the  Holy  Catholic  church,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlasting." 

The  Nicene  Creed  in  the  year  325,  with  its  Platonic 
Logos  interpolated,  which  I  insert  in  italics,  that  the  ad- 
ditions may  be  more  apparent :  "  We  believe  in  one  God 
the  Father  Almighty,  the  Maker  of  all  things  visible  and 
invisible,  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God, 
begotten  of  the  Father,  only  begotten,  that  is,  of  the 
substance  of  the  Father,  God  of  God,  (or  out  of  God, 
or  derived  from  God,)  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of 
very  God,  begotten,  not  made,  of  the  same  substance 
with  tlye  Father,  by  whom  all  things  were  made  that 
are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in  earth,  who  for  us  men, 
and  for  our  salvation,  descended  and  was  incarnate, 
and  became  man,  suffered,  and  rose  again  the  third  day, 
ascended  into  the  heavens,  and  will  come  to  judge  the 
living  and  the  dead  ;  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  those 
who  say  there  was  a  time  when  he  was  not,  and  that  he 
was  not  before  he  was  begotten,  and  that  he  was  made 
out  of  nothing,  or  affirm  that  he  is  of  any  other  sub- 
stance or  essence,  or  that  the  Son  of  God  is  created, 


370  ORIGIN,  NATURE,   AND 

and  piutable,  or  changeable,  the  Catholic  church  doth 
pronounce  accursed." 

Lastly,  the  Athanasian  Creed,  received  in  the  ninth 
or  tenth  century  :  "  Whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all 
things  it  is  necessary  that  he  hold  the  Catholic  faith. 
Which  faith,  except  every  one  do  keep  whole  and  un- 
defiled,  without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly. 
And  the  Catholic  faith  is  this :  That  we  worship  one  God 
in  trinity,  and  trinity  in  unity.  Neither  confounding  the 
persons,  nor  dividing  the  substance.  For  there  is  one 
person  of  the  Father,  another  of  the  Son,  and  another  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  But  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  all  one  ;  the  glory, equal, 
the  majesty  co-eternal.  Such  as  the  Father  is,  such  is 
the  Son,  and  such  is  tlie  Holy  Ghost.  The  Father  un- 
create,  the  Son  uncreate,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  uncreate. 
The  Father  incomprehensible,  the  Son  incomprehensi- 
ble, and  the  Holy  Ghost  incomprehensible.  The  Father 
eternal,  the  Son  eternal,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  eternal : 
^d  yet  there  are  not  three  eternals,  but  one  eternal. 
As  also  there  are  not  three  incomprehensibles  nor  three 
uncreated  ;  but  one  uncreated,  and  one  incomprehensi- 
ble. So  likewise  the  Father  is  Almighty,  the  Son  Al- 
mighty, and  the  Holy  Ghost  Almighty  :  And  yet  there 
are  not  three  Almighties,  but  one  Almighty.  So  the 
Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God :  And  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God. 
So  likewise,  the  Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  Lord,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  Lord :  And  yet  not  three  Lords,  but 
one  Lord.  For  like  as  we  are  compelled  by  the  Chris- 
tian verity,  to  acknowledge  every  Person  by  himself  to 


•  TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS.  371 

be  God  and  Lord  ;  so  are  we  forbidden  by  the  Catholic 
religion  to  say,  there  be  three  Gods,  or  three  Lords. 
The  Father  is  made  of  none,  neither  created,  nor  be- 
gotten. The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone,  not  made,  nor 
created, "but  begotten.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  ;  neither  made  nor  created,  nor  begot- 
ten, but  proceeding.  So  there  is  one  Father,  not  three 
Fathers ;  one  Son,  not  three  Sons ;  one  Holy  Ghost, 
not  three  Holy  Ghosts.  And  in  this  trinity  none  is  afore 
or  after  other,  none  is  greater  or  less  than  another  ;  but 
the  whole  three  Persons  are  co-eternal  together,  and  co- 
equal. So  that  in  all  things,  as  is  aforesaid,  the  Unity 
in  Trinity,  and  the  Trinity  in  Unily,  is  to  be  worship- 
ped. He  therefore  that  will  be  saved,  must  thus  think 
of  the  Trinity.  Furthermore,  it  is  necessary  to  everlast- 
ing salvation,  that  he  also  believe  rightly  the  incarnation 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  the  right  faith  is,  that 
we  believe  and  confess,  That  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  is  God  and  man  ;  God  of  the  substance  of 
the  Father,  begotten  before  the  worlds  ;  and  Man  of  the 
substance  of  his  mother,  born  in  the  world  ;  perfect  God, 
and  perfect  man,  of  a  reasonable  soul,  and  human  flesh 
subsisting ;  equal  to  the  Father,  as  touching  his  God- 
head ;  and  inferior  to  the  Father,  as  touching  his  man- 
hood. Who,  although  he  be  God  and  man,  yet  he  is  not 
two,  but  one  Christ ;  One  ;  not  by  conversion  of  the 
Godhead  into  flesh,  but  by  taking  of  the  manhood  into 
God;  One  altogether;  not  by  confusion  of  substance, 
but  by  unity  of  person.  For,  as  the  reasonable  soul  and 
flesh  is  one  man,  so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ ;  who 
suffered  for  our  salvation,  descended   into   hell,  rose 


372  ORIGIN,  NATURE,  AND  * 

again  the  third  day  from  the  dead ;  he  ascended  into 
heaven,  he  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  God 
Almighty ;  from  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead.  At  whose  coming  all  men  shall  rise 
again  with  their  bodies,  and  shall  give  account  for  their 
own  works.  And  they  that  have  done  good,  shall  go  in- 
to life  everlasting ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  into 
everlasting  fire.  This  is  the  Catholic  faith,  which  ex- 
cept a  man  believe  faithfully  he  cannot  be  saved." 

To  this  I  subjoin  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  : 
"There  are  three  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  These  three  are  one  God, 
the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory." 

These  Creeds,  you  perceive,  when  compared  with 
each  other,  exhibit  most  clearly  the  gradual  formation 
of  the  Trinity,  or  rather  its  interpolation  into  Christian- 
ity. In  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  in  the 
form  of  baptism  as  interpreted  by  its  own  elements,  by 
Justin  Martyr,  and  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  we  have 
the  same  pure  doctrine  of  one  God  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, and  the  miraculous  character  and  divine  mis- 
sion of  Christ,  but  no  intimation  nor  allusion  to  the  Per- 
sonality, much  less  the  separate  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
In  the  Nicene  Creed,  we  have  an  approximation  to  the 
deification  of  Christ,  by  identifying  him  with  the  Pla- 
tonic Logos.  But  still  no  more  is  made  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  than  in  the  form  of  baptism,  or  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed.  In  the  Athanasian  Creed,  eight  hundred  years 
after  Christ,  we  have  Christ  and  the  Spirit  exalted  to 
full  Deity,  with  the  slight  exception  of  derivation, 
which  was  no  objection  in  those  days. 


TENDENCY  OF   CREEDS.  373 

In  the  same  doctrine  in  modern  days,  this  faint  ves- 
tige of  Platonism  disa[)pears,  the  scaffolding  falls  away, 
and  we  have  the  Trinity  complete,  three  equal  persons 
in  one  God. 

As  to  the  Athanasian  Creed,  though  it  was  enacted 
by  no  council,  it  is  a  fair  specimen  of  Theological  spec- 
ulation of  the  age  in  which  it  originated.  It  bears  marks 
on  the  very  face  of  it  of  being  the  production  of  some 
idle  monk  of  the  dark  ages,  who  had  nothing  better  to  do 
than  to  exercise  his  scholastic  ingenuity  in  stringing  to- 
gether a  chain  of  monstrous  and  startling  paradoxes  on 
the  received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  appearing  to 
assert  the  most  astounding  propositions,  really  assert 
nothing  but  what  depends  upon  a  fictitious  and  quib- 
bling distinction  between  created  and  begotten,  which 
when  applied  to  God,  with  those  who  have  any  just  idea 
of  the  spirituality  and  unchangeableness  of  the  Divine 
Nature,  can  have  no  meaning ;  and  between  begotten 
ajid  proceeding,  a  distinction  quite  as  trifling  and  ri- 
diculous. 

The  awkward  figure  which  derived  Divinity  makes 
in  these  enlightened  days,  may  be  sufficiently  learned 
in  the  attempts  to  connect  the  modern  Theology  with 
that  of  the  Schools.  "  The  Father,"  says  one,  "  by 
generation  communicated  his  whole  and  perfect  essence 
to  the  Son,  and  retained  the  whole  of  it  to  himself,  be- 
cause it  is  infinite." 

I  have  now,  I  hope,  redeemed  the  pledges  I  gave  at 

the  commencement  of  this  discourse,  to  show  by   the 

history  and  progress  of  Creeds  the  origin  and  formation 

of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  elements  from  which 

32 


374  ORIGIN,   NATURE;   AND 

it  sprung,  and  the  steps  of  its  advancement,  and  its  final 
completion.  And  are  these  the  things,  it  may  be  indig- 
nantly asked,  which  still  hold  their  place  in  the  nine- 
teenth century  as  the  infallible  interpretation  of  the 
word  of  God  ?  Are  these  the  fetters  which  are  fastened 
upon  the  mind  of  this  age  ?  Can  it  be  a  fact  that  any 
one  can  impose,  or  any  one  submit  to  such  a  mingled 
mass  of  Paganism  and  Christianity  ?  Can  it  be  possi- 
ble that  one  of  the  most  enlightened  nations  of  Europe 
dispenses  not  only  ecclesiastical  but  civil  honors  and 
emoluments  to  those  only  who  will  subscribe  to  these 
relics  of  the  dark  ages  ?  Is  there  any  enlightened  Chris- 
tian who  does  not  perceive  that  it  is  equally  in  violation 
of  the  express  commands  of  Christ  to  form,  as  to  assent 
to  a  Creed  ? 

By  what  right  can  any  body  of  men  impose  a  Creed  ? 
By  none  other  than  that  of  a  majority.  And  is  a  ma- 
jority the  infallible  seal  of  truth  ?  And  can  a  Protestant 
resort  to  such  an  authority  as  this  ?  If  in  one  class  of 
Christians  the  majority  have  a  right  to  enact  a  Creed  for 
the  minority,  then  the  majority  of  the  whole  Christian 
mime  have  an  equal  right  to  enact  a  Creed  for  the 
church  universal.  And  who  does  not  know  that  were 
the  whole  church  represented  according  to  numbers,  the 
Protestants  would  be  found  in  a  minority,  and  be  com- 
pelled inevitably,  on  these  principles,  to  surrender  all 
the  glorious  achievements  of  the  Reformation  and  re- 
turn to  the  Mother  Church  ?  Who  does  not  perceive 
that  there  is  not  and  never  can  be  uniformity  of  opin- 
ion ?  Subscription,  therefore,  if  it  be  meant  to  be  lite- 
ral and  exact,  must  be,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  insincere 


TENDENCY  OF   CREEDS.  375 

and  dishonest.  If  it  allow  latitude,  who  is  to  prescribe 
the  bounds  of  that  latitude  ?  And  if  they  are  not  pre- 
scribed, the  Creed  is  a  mockery,  and  ought  to  be  aban- 
doned. When  honor  and  station  are  attached  to  it,  who 
does  not  see  that  it  operates  as  a  privilege  to  the  insin- 
cere, and  a  bar  only  to  the  conscientious  ?  Is  truth  (he 
exclusive  discovery  of  one  age  ?  Is  it  rational  or  tolera- 
ble for  one  age  to  dictate  opinions  to  its  successors  for- 
ever ?  Where  then  is  the  sense  of  Christian  ministers  re- 
peating to  their  congregations  the  decision  of  a  council 
of  the  fourth  century  upon  a  point  of  heathen  philoso- 
phy, the  merits  of  which  neither  they  nor  their  hearers 
comprehend  ?  Is  reasonable  faith  promoted  by  repeat- 
ing a  form  of  words,  without  any  increase  of  evidence, 
or  without  any  evidence  at  all  ?  But  such  is  the  force 
of  custom  that  it  binds  together,  by  its  continuous  and 
lengthening  chain,  the  most  distant  ages  in  the  recep- 
tion of  the  same  errors  and  abuses,  as  well  as  the  same 
truths.  Creeds,  whenever  formed  and  fastened  on  the 
mind,  especially  when  incorporated  with  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  organization,  cramp  its  faculties,  discourage  in- 
quiry, and  produce  indifference  to  truth  ;  and  nothing 
short  of  some  great  convulsion  in  society  has  power  to 
throw  them  off.  Resting  as  they  do  on  the  imaginary 
authority  of  many,  no  one  has  the  moral  courage  to  as- 
sume the  responsibility  of  abandoning  them,  or  calhng 
them  in  question.  Even  if  the  conviction  arises  in  the 
mind  of  any  that  it  ought  to  be  done,  there  is  a  dispo- 
sition to  delay ;  so  day  glides  on  after  day,  till  ages  are 
numbered,  and  nothing  is  done.  In  many  weai<  and 
timid  minds  there  seems  to  be  an  apprehension,  most 


376     ORIGIN,  NATURE,  AND  TENDENCY  OF  CREEDS. 

derogator}'  to  truth  and  the  Scriptures,  as  if  they  rested 
on  Creeds  for  their  support;  and  that  if  Creeds  were 
swept  away,  all  is  over  with  the  cause  of  rehgion.  It  is 
not  safe  to  trust  the  human  mind  with  itself  and  the  Bi- 
ble. It  is  difficult  to  say  whether  this  idea  is  most  dis- 
honorable to  man,  reproachful  to  God,  disparaging  to 
the  Bible,  or  inconsistent  with  itself.  Must  man  take 
God's  revelation  at  second  liand  ?  Must  God's  revela- 
tion be  revised  by  man  before  it  is  either  safe  or  effec- 
tual ?  Are  not  those  who  make  Creeds,  fallible  men  too, 
as  well  as  those  who  receive  them  ?  Are  not  the  men 
of  this  age  as  capable  of  drawing  truth  from  the  Bible 
as  their  predecessors,  an  enlightened  age  as  one  com- 
paratively dark^and  ignorant  ? 

The  reign  of  Creeds,  however,  is  gone  by.  Their 
chief  support  has  been  the  connection  of  church  and 
State,  which  has  prevailed  more  or  less  since  the  time 
of  Constantino  in  the  fourth  century.  As  one  great 
truth  after  another  rises  in  our  firmament,  and  pours  on 
our  world  a  broad  and  general  light,  Creeds  are  destined 
to  wane,  and  fade,  and  disappear. 


1012  01006  6548 


DATE 

DUE 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.SA 

